Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

West Hartlepool Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Corby (Northants) and District Water Bill [Lords],

Epsom Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],

Hackney Borough Council Bill [Lords],

London Squares Preservation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Great Marlow Water and Yeadon Water) Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL,

"to confirm a Scheme made by the Minister of Transport under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Great Western Railway Company," presented by Mr. Parkinson; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many officers and men of the British and Indian armies were killed and wounded on the north-west frontier of India from the 1st April, 1930, to the 31st March, 1931?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The figures for the British Army are seven British other ranks killed, and one officer and 20 other ranks wounded; for the Indian Army, two British officers, one Indian officer and 18 other ranks killed, and two Indian officers and 55 other ranks wounded.

Sir A. KNOX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India from what date to what date the covering force was employed on the Kajuri Plain near Peshawar; how it was housed; and if it was under active service conditions as regards rations, leave, and allowances?

Mr. BENN: The main body of the troops employed moved in on 17th October last. One Brigade was withdrawn in January and the remaining two in the middle and latter part of March. Two battalions are still maintained in the area. The troops were under canvas during the main period of operations. The area was declared a Field Service area, and Field Service conditions as regards rations, leave and allowances were applied accordingly.

Sir A. KNOX: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he might suggest to the Government of India that they could issue a medal for these operations in view of the casualties and hardships suffered by the troops?

Mr. BENN: I quite understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's feelings. The initiative in these matters comes from the Government of India and the Army Department, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question shall be brought to their notice.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that, no doubt, the Government of India is rather nervous about suggesting that a war took place with a Labour Government in office?

FACTORY INSPECTORS.

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of whole-time or part-time factory inspectors that are employed in India; and how many of these inspectors are women?

Mr. BENN: At the beginning of this year the number was 47, including one woman inspector in Bombay.

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information from the Government of India as to their present intention of increasing the number of whole-time women inspectors?

Mr. BENN: I cannot say. The hon. Member must remember the financial stringency which prevails.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Does Mr. Gandhi appoint these inspectors?

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS.

Mr. BRACKEN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the instructions given by the Congress party at the meeting at Karachi to its delegate to future meetings of the Round Table Conference or any of its committeees, His Majesty's Government will obtain an assurance that that delegate accepts the safeguards formulated by the first session of the Round Table Conference held at St. James's Palace before he is invited to attend the forthcoming session of the Round Table Conference or the Federal Structure Committee?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now any information as to the acceptance by Mr. Gandhi of the constitutional safeguards agreed upon by the Round Table Conference?

Colonel LANE FOX: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, to avoid the danger of disappointment to him and misunderstanding in India, it will be made clear to Mr. Gandhi, before he starts for England from India, that the safeguards set out at the Round Table Conference form an essential condition of the consideration by Parliament of any federal scheme of government for India?

Mr. BENN: The published result of the conversations between Lord Irwin and Mr. Gandhi shows, in paragraph 2, that constitutional discussions were to be resumed on the scheme outlined by the Round Table Conference, and that it was explicitly recognised that just as federation and Indian responsibility are an essential part of this scheme, so also are "reservations or safeguards in the interests of India for such matters as, for instance, defence, external affairs, the position of minorities, the financial credit of India and discharge of obligations."

Mr. BRACKEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Mr. Gandhi accepted instructions at Karachi which cut right across the terms of the Gandhi-lrwin settlement?

Colonel LANE FOX: Will it be made quite clear to Mr. Gandhi before he comes to this country that these are not mere bargaining points and that no compromise in principle will be possible at all?

Mr. BENN: I hope I have made it quite clear by my answer that discussions will be resumed on the basis of paragraph 2 as read out by me.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that recent statements by Mr. Gandhi are completely contrary to the Gandhi-lrwin agreement?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do the whole of the future prospects of this conference depend on Mr. Gandhi?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there is a little danger arising out of the possible misunderstanding—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

FEDERAL STRUCTURE COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India what are the causes of the delay in deciding on the delegates or representatives, or the communities and interests to be represented, on the Federal Structure Committee of the resumed Round Table Conference?

Mr. BENN: It is necessary before attempting to settle the personnel of the Committee to decide when it can meet; the Governor-General is now engaged in consultation with delegates on this point, and I hope shortly to be able to announce the decisions taken as the result.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (PUBLICITY).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India what are the means by which the Government of India and the provincial administrations ensure publicity for their policy and correct the mis-statements spread among the Indian peoples; and whether any efforts are being made through Indian schools or otherwise to educate them in the advantages that have accrued to India from the British Raj?

Mr. BENN: The policy of Governments is made public in India as elsewhere in the first place by speeches and resolutions in the Legislatures and by special announcements. These and other forms of information are made available by information bureaux maintained by the Government of India and most of the provincial administrations, which on occasion distribute official news sheets specially prepared to meet the requirements of the province or the district. In addition it is one of the functions of District Officers to represent the Government's policy informally in conversation and otherwise. As to schools the hon. and gallant Member will he aware that education is a provincial transferred subject and it is not possible to give any complete answer to the second part of the question without making special inquiries of each Local Government.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Since the matter was raised last week, has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a letter from the late Director of Public Information making various useful suggestions as to how information could be better disseminated, and will he give that matter his earnest consideration?

Mr. BENN: Yes, I have seen letters from Professor Coatman and Professor Rushbrook Williams, and they are being considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that our case is being presented to the Indian people?

Mr. BENN: I have given particulars as to the machinery which exists and which is being used as opportunity allows.

PROVINCIAL SERVICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, besides the conversations at Simla, any discussions have been initiated in the various provinces for the purpose of seeking agreement among the communities as to the future provincial services and other matters arising out of the proposals for a federal structure; and whether provincial round table conferences have been called or are to be called?

Mr. BENN: Informal discussions on the subject of constitutional reform in
all its aspects have no doubt been taking place all over India, but it is not at present proposed to set up any committees or other bodies in India to deal solely with provincial aspects except in the case of the special problems which arise in connection with the North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Orissa.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that this matter is not being overlooked as otherwise there will be no federal units decided upon to come into the federation?

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, OTTAWA.

Major GRAHAM POLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether India will be represented at the Ottawa Imperial Conference; and, if so, whether he can make a statement concerning the personnel of the Indian delegation?

Mr. BENN: India will be represented at the Ottawa Imperial Conference. I am not yet in a position to announce the composition of the Indian delegation.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the Suggestion that the delegation should be selected by the elected parties in the Legislative Assembly?

Mr. BENN: That is a different consideration.

EXPENDITURE.

Major POLE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House of the steps which are being taken by the Government of India to ascertain in view of the present depressed conditions in that country, the possibility of effecting economies in expenditure under the central heads of Government?

Mr. BENN: I understand that, with the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly, an Advisory Committee is being appointed, and will shortly meet, to co-operate with the Government of India in appointing a number of committees which will examine the possibilities of retrenchment in various branches of the Administration. It is also proposed that this month representatives of the Provincial Governments should discuss the matter with representatives of the Central Government.

LABOUR CONDITIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Major POLE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House as to when it is hoped to make public the report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India?

Mr. BENN: It is hoped to publish the report towards the end of June.

RIOTS, CAWNPORE.

Mr. REMER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has received the report of the Commission inquiring into the Cawnpore riots; and, if so, when the report will be published?

Mr. BENN: As I stated last Monday, the commission of inquiry is expected to present its report to the local government in a few days from now. I cannot at present say anything as to the probable date of publication.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it will be published?

Mr. BENN: I think we had better see the report.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when it will be published so that a Debate can be held?

Mr. BENN: The information at my disposal is that it will be presented within a few days. The report will then be examined and it will take some little time. I cannot give any more precise indication than that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman does not contemplate anything like a delay of a month in the examination of this report?

Mr. BENN: I cannot say. I cannot give any definite date. All I will say is that there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: Is there any doubt about the report being published?

Mr. BENN: We must, first of all, get the report. We have no desire either to conceal anything or to delay anything, but at the same time these cases must be dealt with in proper order.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we not withholding any Debate upon this subject
because we are waiting for this report, and, if the right hon. Gentleman throws doubt upon the date upon which we may get the report, or indicates that it may take a very long time, will not that be a reason for making it necessary, perhaps, to bring on the matter before?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

BURMA.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the reasons for the revolt in Burma; what are the causes of its rapid spread to all parts of the country; and whether this is a national movement or due to economic causes?

Mr. BENN: Risings have occurred only in five contiguous districts in Lower Burma. Their origin is ascribed to political movements which have found favourable ground for growth in the severe and general economic depression due to the fall in the price of rice and paddy.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the trend of this movement now is to direct it against Indian and British officers, and can he give some information about the matter?

Mr. BENN: I have not had an official account of the incident reported in this morning's papers, but I hope to receive it shortly. I shall get the fullest information as to the tread of the movement and shall publish it for the information of the House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Why use the words "only five." Does the right hon. Gentleman think that five is a great number?

Mr. BENN: The words "only five" really deal with that part of the question which suggested that it was in all parts of the country.

PRISONERS.

Mr. BRACKEN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any of the persons released from prison, under the terms of the Gandhi-Irwin settlement, have since been rearrested; and, if so, will he state the number now in prison?

Mr. BENN: I have not been informed of any cases.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in order to get the information for which the hon. Member has asked?

Mr. BENN: I think that such an inquiry would be an extremely laborious and difficult inquiry to make. It means searching into the cases of 16,000 or 17,000 individuals. If cases of the kind intimated by the hon. Member are brought to my notice, I shall certainly give the information if asked to do so.

Mr. BRACKEN: Is it not a matter of great importance that we should know?

MOTORING RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. BRACKEN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the privilege of motoring through Simla, which has recently been extended to Mr. Gandhi and his associates, will also be extended to all ruling Princes, Governors of provinces, judges, Moslem leaders, and other eminent persons?

Mr. HANNON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which Mr. Gandhi's motor-car was accorded privileges on his approach to Simla which have hitherto been denied to ruling Princes?

Mr. BENN: This is a matter which I propose to leave to the discretion of the authorities in India.

Mr. BRACKEN: Does the Secretary of State believe that privileges should be granted to Mr. Gandhi which are not granted to the Indian Princes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the Secretary of State be good enough to answer Question 17, which he was answering at the same time, and which asks whether he will make a statement on the circumstances under which this motor-car was accorded privileges? He has not made any statement upon it.

Mr. BENN: My answer was that it was a matter which I proposed to leave to the authorities in India.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Smithers.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether your attention has been called to the fact that my hon. Friend here who had
a question on the Paper wished to ask a supplementary question and was not afforded an opportunity of doing so?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are so many supplementary questions that I really must draw the line somewhere.

Mr. HACKING: Is it not a fact that, if my hon. Friend had received an answer from the Secretary of State, there would have been no necessity for a supplementary question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not always expect to be satisfied with the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IRON AND STEEL TRADE (INDIA).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any negotiations are being opened with a view to securing a larger share of the market for iron and steel in India for British manufacturers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): No, Sir; His Majesty's Government in this country have opened no such negotiations.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Minister with reference to the deplorable condition of the steel industry and see whether something cannot be done?

Mr. SMITH: My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances connected with the industry at home. He is in very close touch with it and is quite willing to do all that is possible.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Why has he done nothing yet?

GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (PROPOSED CUSTOMS UNION).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any proposals from the French Government as to the line of action to be adopted in regard to the proposed Austro-German Customs Union?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): I understand that the views of the
French Government on this subject have been embodied in two memoranda, which are now being submitted to the Committee on European Union, at present in session at Geneva. Summaries of these documents have appeared in the Press.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the Under-Secretary say how soon full information on this subject will be available to the House?

Mr. DALTON: If the hon. Member desires to have some fuller accounts of the French Memoranda, he can obtain it very shortly. Summaries of it have already appeared in the Press. The discussions on the subject are likely to continue for some days to come at Geneva.

Earl WINTERTON: Is there to be a White Paper issued on the discussions of this very important Committee of the League of Nations?

Mr. DALTON: A White Paper is always published of the council meetings, and I will represent to my right hon. Friend the desire expressed for the issue of a White Paper on this question.

Earl WINTERTON: Will it be possible to do this as early as possible in view of the great interest taken in it by hon. Members?

Mr. DALTON: The earlier it is published, the greater the interest is likely to be.

Dr. MORRIS - JONES: Will the Under-Secretary tell the House how long the Government are going to say ditto to France in this matter?

ANGLO-FRENCH COMMERCIAL CONVENTION.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether conferences have been held between representatives of His Majesty's Government and representatives of the French Government in connection with the proposals for revising the Franco-British commercial agreement; and, if so, when will he be able to make a statement as to whether there is to be a new treaty or a revision of the 1882 agreement in order to bring it up to date?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: No such conferences have taken place, nor are any steps in contemplation at present for the revision of the Anglo-French Commercial Convention of 1882 which, I may add, does not deal with Customs duties.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is it a fact that M. Erbel and M. Arnal representing the French Government have not conferred with the British authorities in connection with this matter?

Mr. SMITH: I can add nothing to the answer.

TARIFFS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been informed of any negotiations between European countries for the formulation of new tariff treaties other than that in view between Austria and Germany; and, it so, has Great Britain intervened in the negotiations?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Negotiations for new commercial treaties including tariff provisions, have been in progress for some time between various European countries, but His Majesty's Government have not intervened in any of these negotiations. As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, we are entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment, speaking generally, in every country in Europe.

PORTUGAL (TREATY).

Captain CROOKSHANK (for Sir ASSHETON POWNALL): 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Portuguese Treaty comes up for revision and, if so, at what date, or whether it continues in force unless and until denounced?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The position is correctly described in the latter part of the question. Notice of denunciation can now be given by either party at any time, and if given takes effect 12 months from the date of the notice.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Has the hon. gentleman not heard that the Portuguese are likely to denounce this Treaty?

HON. MEMBERS: Which Portuguese?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Mr. SMITHERS: 19
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what has been the cost involved in the sittings of Sub-Committee B of the Russian Debts and Claims Committee;
(2) how many Russian delegates attended the meeting of Sub-Committee B of the Soviet Debts and Claims Committee: if these delegates also sit as members of the main or other sub-committees; and if they will be remaining in this country;
(3) whether he can now inform the House as to the position of the negotiations on Sub-Committee B of the Anglo-Soviet Joint Committee; and what further action does he now propose to take on behalf of the British bondholders?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement as to the progress of claims of British citizens against the Soviet Government, and particularly as to the proceedings of Sub-Committee B of the Anglo-Soviet Joint Committee; and whether it is proposed to continue its work?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the position with regard to Sub-Committee B of the Anglo-Soviet Joint Committee on British claims; and whether, in view of the attitude taken up by the Soviet delegates, he proposes to continue the conference?

Mr. DALTON: With regard to the labours of Sub-Committee B, I have at present nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Members for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on the 11th of May. The negotiations in that Sub-Committee are continuing. As Lord Goschen and his colleagues have been so good as to lend their services to His Majesty's Government without payment, no cost is incurred by the Exchequer owing to the sittings of Sub-Committee B. There are five Russian delegates on the main committee. One or two of these take part in the discussion of the Sub-Committees,
on which they are assisted by experts who are not members of the main committee. My right hon. Friend presumes that the Soviet delegates will remain in this country until the work of the committee is terminated.

Sir K. WOOD: As regards Question No. 22, which the hon. Gentleman answered at the same time, does he still state, as was stated on behalf of the Foreign Office last week that Sub-Committee B did not notify that it was impossible to continue proceedings usefully owing to the action of the Soviet delegates; and does he adhere to that statement?

Mr. DALTON: I adhere to the statement made by my right hon. Friend which was a somewhat long one. If the right hon. Gentleman is accurately repeating the statement of my right hon. Friend, I adhere to it. If, on the other hand, he was putting in other words of his own, I should require to consider it carefully.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply last week was as far as information was at present available, and I now ask him definitely to state whether or not it is true that this Sub-committee intimated that they were unable to proceed with their work owing to the action of the Soviet Government?

Mr. DALTON: The Sub-committee have reported to the main Committee certain difficulties which they encountered during the course of their work. That is quite a different thing from statements which appeared in certain newspapers that negotiations had broken down. Important negotiations do not break down in Sub-committees.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he informed me on Monday that the attitude of the Soviet representatives with regard to making any payment has not yet been defined; and, as the Committee has now been sitting for eight months, does he think that any useful purpose is served in continuing when the general attitude to making any payment has not yet been defined?

Mr. DALTON: I think that the hon. Member is confusing Sub-Committee B with Sub-Committee C.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Are the difficulties fundamental?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not a fact that the British representatives on Sub-Committee B said that it was impossible to carry on; what has happened since then to make matters easier; and have the Soviet representatives come to their senses and are they now willing to continue?

Mr. DALTON: I do not think that I can add anything to the answer which I have given to these various questions.

Mr. WISE: Has any proposal been made by this country—

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Kingsley Wood.

CAPTAIN REILLY.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiries from the Soviet Government as to where Captain George Reilly is imprisoned?

Mr. DALTON: Inquiries were made early in 1929, through the Norwegian Legation in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities replied that Captain Reilly had been shot while attempting illegally to cross the frontier in September, 1925. It does not, therefore, appear that further inquiries would yield any useful results.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent book by M. Brunovsky, who was imprisoned in Russia in 1926, it is reported that Captain Reilly was then alive and imprisoned in the same prison, a year after he had been alleged to have been shot by the Soviet Government?

Mr. DALTON: No, I was not aware of that fact. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with any fresh evidence on which we could repeat the inquiries which were made at that time by our predecessors, and the results of which they considered to be conclusive at that time, I shall be glad to have it.

PROPAGANDA.

Sir A. KNOX: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the plans of the Communist International and the Bed Trade Union International of Moscow for an intensification of offensive
operations against the British Empire in 1931; and, seeing that those plans are a breach of the treaty with the Soviet Government, what steps he proposes to take?

Mr. DALTON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) on Thursday last.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was most unsatisfactory?

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the report sent to him from the Anti-Slavery Society on the conditions of labour in the Russian timber camps, with a request to transmit it to the Soviet Government; and what action he proposes to take upon the report and request?

Mr. DALTON: This report was received in the Foreign Office on Friday last. It is now being carefully studied, but my right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to give it his personal attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (MURDER OF BRITISHM ISSIONARIES).

Sir K. WOOD: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the murderers of the lady missionaries and the bandits who captured the late Father Tierney have yet been apprehended by the Chinese Government?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend regrets that the reply is in the negative.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman state when last the British Government made a communication with regard to both of those unfortunate cases?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir, not without notice. We are satisfied that the Chinese Government are doing their best, and that Sir Miles Lampson is doing his best. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that China is not the only place where criminals sometimes elude the police.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Sir K. WOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the present position in Spain?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British subjects have suffered loss or injury in the attacks on religious houses in Spain?

Mr. DALTON: Last week there were extensive outbreaks of rioting in various parts of Spain, directed principally against religious institutions. Considerable damage and in some cases the complete destruction of buildings and their contents resulted. The Government have, in consequence, declared martial law in many parts of the country. As a result of the measures taken by the Government, the situation has for the past three days been calmer, and appears to be in hand. Very little loss of life seems to have occurred. The only case in which a British subject is so far reported to have suffered loss is that of the household effects of a British officer, which had been left stored in one of the convents burnt down at Malaga, and were totally lost.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether martial law is still in operation?

Mr. DALTON: I think it is still in operation over certain parts of Spain.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Member any knowledge as to British nationals in these religious houses in Spain?

Mr. DALTON: The only account that we have of any British national having in any way suffered damage or loss is the one that I have cited. It appears to be generally true that the inmates of the religious houses have in nearly all cases been allowed to escape without damage.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the troubles there were accentuated by Communist propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN GALICIA.

Major HILLS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he
will supply the text of the communication addressed by the Allied and Associated Powers, in June, 1919, to the East Galician Ukrainians, inviting them to withdraw their troops from Eastern Galicia, declaring that the fate of Eastern Galicia would not be decided without its population being duly consulted; and whether he has information to show whether the terms of the statute for Eastern Galicia, decreed by the Allied and Associated Powers at the Paris Peace Conference in November, 1919, are being observed or the contrary?

Mr. DALTON: It has not been the practice of His Majesty's Government to publish decisions taken at the Peace Conference without the consent of the other Governments concerned. The right hon. Gentleman may, however, be aware that the Ukrainian Bureau in Paris has published what purports to be the text of the communication received by the Ukrainian Delegation in Paris from the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference on the 26th of June, 1929. I shall be happy to send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of this communication, as published, if he so desires. The treaty relating to Eastern Galicia, drawn up in November, 1919, was never concluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Commander SOUTHBY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of giving notice, under Article 5 of the convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America respecting the regulation of the liquor traffic, to modify Article 2 of the convention so as to substitute a definite distance for the distance which can he traversed by a suspected vessel in one hour, in view of the doubt and uncertainty occasioned by the latter arrangement?

Mr. DALTON: The question of fixing a definite distance was very carefully considered at the time of the negotiation of the Convention, but this plan was found to be impracticable, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he is not, therefore, in a position to act in the sense suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

Commander SOUTHBY: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that in the exercise of the privileges conferred upon the United States under this Convention, due regard is paid to the rights of British subjects under the British flag?

Mr. DALTON: I hope that may be so. At the same time, British subjects proceeding on their legitimate errands are obviously prejudiced by the action of liquor smugglers.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any cases are now under consideration involving disputes on this matter?

Mr. DALTON: Yes, there is one, in regard to which I gave an answer the other day.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that the legal decisions in the United States vary very largely in regard to interpretations on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (DISTURBANCES, CAIRO).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the recent outbreak of riot in Cairo; and if he can tell the House how many deaths were involved and how many of these were British subjects?

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House of any injury to British nationals or loss to their property which has occurred during the rioting in Cairo on Thursday last?

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make as to the recent disturbances in Egypt; and whether any additional precautions have been taken for the protection of British interests?

Mr. DALTON: The High Commissioner reports that on the 14th of May, the first day of the elections, a series of demonstrations in Cairo, largely in the Boulac quarter, led to firing by police and troops. The civilian casualties were 13 killed or died of wounds and 119 wounded detained in hospital. The police and army casualties were two officers and 34 men wounded. One British
Cypriot subject was killed, shot, it is thought, by a stray bullet. One British subject in a tram suffered injury to his head by a stone. A number of omnibuses were badly damaged, and six trams and six railway coaches were burned. A further demonstration occurred in Cairo on the 16th of May, in which one civilian was killed. In other part of Egypt the casualties to date amount to 13 civilians killed and 38 wounded, one police officer killed, and three officers and officials and 11 men wounded. Sir Percy Loraine reports that the usual extra precautions for the protection of foreign interests generally at a moment of threatened disturbance were taken by the Egyptian Government. No additional precautions were taken by the British authorities for the protection of British interests.

Mr. BRACKEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this is the result of the policy of scuttling out of Egypt?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL COLONIAL EXHIBITION, PARIS.

Major COLVILLE: 37.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to what extent the British Government are participating in the International Colonial Exhibition in Paris?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: While for reasons of economy His Majesty's Government will not participate in the main section of the International Colonial Exhibition near Paris, they have taken space in the Cite des Informations which adjoins the main exhibition. The principal component parts of the British section, which occupies an area of 3,000 square feet, are exhibits illustrating the advance of tropical medicine in combating disease in the British Colonies and Protectorates, an Inquiry Bureau, part of which deals with inquiries relating to colonial and other matters and part of which has been arranged by the Travel Association.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 39.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he receives notification of requirements for materials needed by the Suez Canal Company and, if so, through what channel; whether he circulates the
notifications among British exporting firms; whether the notifications are in French and/or English; and if only in French does his Department translate the notifications before circulation?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but I understand that the company possesses an extensive list of representative firms in England to whom they write direct when they invite tenders for various materials. The second, third and fourth parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

Mr. SAMUEL: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Board of Trade Vote.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ascertain from the British Government directors of the Suez Canal Company what was the average percentage ingredient cost on the inward and outward transit dues in the freights of shipping using the canal as at 1st May, 1931?

Mr. SMITH: The British Government directors on the Suez Canal Company would not be in a position to furnish the information requested, but according to the annual report of the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association for 1930, on the basis of the then existing level of dues and freights, the Suez Canal Company's charges amounted on an average to 13 per cent. of the gross freights outwards and inwards.

Mr. SAMUEL: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the proportion of British tonage to all tonnage of shipping passing through the Suez Canal during 1930; the proportion of the British Government's holding of shares in the Suez Canal; and the proportion of purchases by the Suez Canal Company during 1930 of stores and materials from British firms?

Mr. SMITH: British tonnage passing through the Canal in 1930 was 56 per cent. of the total tonnage of shipping in transit. The proportion of the ordinary shares of the Suez Canal Company held by His Majesty's Government is about 44 per cent. As regards the last part of the question, the information is not available, but I will see how far it may be possible to obtain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

VETERINARY MEDICAL RESEARCH.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a scheme for the development and coordination of veterinary medical research is now being prepared; when it is proposed that it shall be put into operation; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss it before the details are finally decided?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I can add nothing to the reply which I give to a similar question from the hon. and gallant Member on Monday last.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does not this scheme involve finance, and is it not right therefore that it should be submitted to the House in time for discussion?

Dr. ADDISON: Any scheme for research must necessarily involve finance, and I must await the scheme itself before giving any undertakings, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I shall be glad of an opportunity of doing so.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the matter before a decision is taken or after it has been taken?

Dr. ADDISON: I have not seen the scheme yet fully prepared.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will there be a Supplementary Estimate on this matter?

Dr. ADDISON: I must have notice of that question.

POULTRY FARMING, SURREY.

Mr. EDE: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of poultry produce marketed from the County of Surrey in 1919 and 1930, respectively?

Dr. ADDISON: I regret that this information is not available.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. EDE: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of allotments there are per 100,000 of the population of England and Wales; and what proportion of the lands used for allotments in England and Wales is owned by local authorities?

Dr. ADDISON: The area of allotments per 100,000 of the population in England and Wales is 369 acres. Local authorities own 18.2 per cent. of the total area used for allotments, and of this figure 4.1 per cent. represents land purchased for other purposes but let temporarily for allotments.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 48.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in certain counties it is impossible to employ an agricultural labourer for three days only in the week, but that the farmer has to employ the man for the whole week or allow him to stand off; and, seeing that this course inflicts hardship both on the farmer and the agricultural worker, will he take steps to remedy this grievance?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware that the position is as stated by the hon. and gallant Member but the Orders fixing minimum rates of wages are framed to secure that a regular worker shall receive a weekly minimum wage. This principle is in accordance with the requirements of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act that the minimum rates shall provide an adequate living wage, and I am not prepared to take any steps in a contrary direction.

COUNTY STATUTORY COMMITEES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture by what authority officials of his Department have interviewed clerks of county councils and urged that vacancies are to be created on agricultural education sub-committees with a view to a particular political party being represented?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that officials of his Department have endeavoured to persuade certain county councils to elect members of a certain political party to county statutory committees to the exclusion of persons not members of that party; and whether he will give an assurance that this practice will now be discontinued?

Dr. ADDISON: These questions appear to arise out of statements made in the course of, or subsequently to, a recent meeting of the Hertfordshire County Council. The person or persons
responsible for them appear to have been equally ready to neglect acquainting themselves with the facts as they were anxious to foment mischief. There is not a word of truth in the statement that I have endeavoured to persuade certain county councils to elect members of a certain political party to county statutory committees to the exclusion of persons not members of that party. Under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919, the Minister has a statutory right to appoint not more than one-third of the members of a county agricultural committee or of any sub-committee to which powers of the agricultural committee are delegated, and in exercising these powers, I necessarily review the constitution of that part of the committee appointed by the council, since it is my endeavour to secure that each of the interests concerned—agricultural landowner, farmer and agricultural labour—is represented. I have not interfered, or attempted to interfere, with the appointment of the county council members of these committees, nor to influence in any way the appointment of members nominated by outside bodies and appointed by the council. The position, shortly, is that I have exercised, and shall continue to exercise, my powers of appointment under the Act so as to ensure, as far as possible, that all agricultural interests are duly represented on these committees.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask if we can have an assurance that any appointments made by the Minister of Agriculture to these agricultural committees will be persons with an intimate knowledge of agriculture?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes. I do not think I have made any appointment but which fulfils that condition. The position is that some sections are not fairly represented.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I press the point as to whether persons appointed to these committees will have an intimate acquaintance with agriculture?

Mr. ALPASS: Is it not the fact that agricultural workers have been grossly unfairly represented on these committees in the past?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not know, but there are only two out of 30 on this particular committee.

ENGINEERING RESEARCH.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any grants are available from his Department for research in agricultural engineering to be carried out either by the Institute for Research in Agricultural Engineering at Oxford or by individual firms of manufacturers; and, if so, what is the extent of the grant and the conditions governing it?

Dr. ADDISON: Annual grants have been made since 1924 from the Development Fund to the University of Oxford in aid of the Institute of Agricultural Engineering. The grant is made for the purpose of research in agricultural engineering, and for the current academic year is assessed at £12,700. The conditions attaching to such grants are rather voluminous, and I am, therefore, sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy. The Ministry is precluded from making grants from the Development Fund to individual firms.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the need for research with regard to the development of small harvester-thresher machines suitable to English conditions; and whether he proposes to encourage such research either by direct grants over a period of years or by any other method?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. The question has been receiving the attention of my Department for some years, and funds are already available for investigations into the types of machine most suitable for this country.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of practical agriculturists and ascertain whether the conditions in this country are suitable for this machinery?

Dr. ADDISON: I presume that is done at the institute.

WAGES.

Lady NOEL-BUXTON: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the reduction of farm wages by the Suffolk Agricultural Wages Committee, he will consider the introduction of legislation to establish a central board with power to fix farm wages?

Dr. ADDISON: The situation brought about by the recent decision of the Suffolk Agricultural Wages Committee is receiving my careful consideration, including the suggestion contained in the question by my Noble Friend.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask if prices have anything to do with this reduction in wages, and, if so, what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do about it?

BRITISH PEDIGREE LIVESTOCK (ARGENTINA).

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information with reference to the import duties on pedigree livestock from this country entering Argentina?

Dr. ADDISON: I am glad to say that the Argentine Government has cancelled the duty of 5 per cent. on pedigree livestock imported into Argentina for reproduction.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: Does not this show the importance of pressing forward with the legislation for the improvement of the livestock of this country?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I think it does.

FOREIGN BUTTER (MARKING).

Mr. JAMES HALL (for Mr. MACLEAN),: 45.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that largo quantities of foreign butter are blended with British butter and are being sold as British butter, he will take steps to secure that such butter, when sold, has the packet or paper container suitably marked with the percentage of foreign butter and the foreign country?

Dr. ADDISON: Under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, provision is made for the making of Orders in Council requiring the marking of imported goods of any description with an indication of origin. Before such an Order can be made, however, an inquiry has to be held by the Standing Committee set up for that purpose. There has recently been an inquiry in respect of butter, and I am now awaiting the report of the Committee.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to do anything on the report of the committee?

Dr. ADDISON: That depends on the nature of the report.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: How long will it be before the right hon. Gentleman gets the report?

Dr. ADDISON: I think it will be received quite shortly, but I prefer to have notice of the question.

WHEAT CONFERENCES.

Mr. J. HALL (for Mr. MACLEAN): 46.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the British Government will be represented officially by a delegate at the conference at Canada House, London, on 18th May?

Dr. ADDISON: As I have already explained, the conference is confined to representatives of wheat exporting countries, and Great Britain is, therefore, not sending a delegate.

Mr. LAMBERT: Shall we have any information as to the result of this conference, which is rather important?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, it is very important, and I presume that we shall have information.

Mr. J. HALL (for Mr. MACLEAN): 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the British delegation at the preparatory Wheat Conference at Rome supported the policy of import boards?

Dr. ADDISON: The subject of import organisation was not dealt with by the conference in the form indicated in the question, but on a resolution in the following terms, which was adopted:
At the same time the conference recommends purchasers in importing countries, where the need is felt, to endeavour to organise the purchase of imported wheats. This can he carried out, whatever form it takes, according to the particular situation in each country.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it the intention of the Government to implement that by legislation?

Dr. ADDISON: That does not arise at all out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENT CHARGE.

Mr. GRANVILLE: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he intends introducing legislation to amend the 1925 Tithe Act?

Dr. ADDISON: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. GRANVILLE: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cases of hardship due to excessive tithe payment where the rate is more than three shillings in the pound of the annual value of land; the number of cases heard in the courts where orders for distraining on goods have been made for the nonpayment of tithe; and whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the whole question of tithe payment?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that in a number of cases owners of agricultural land are complaining of the burden of tithe rentcharge, but I would remind the hon. Member that the liability was in existence when the present owners purchased or inherited the land and the hon. Member must realise that relief could only be obtained either at the expense of the tithe owner or taxpayer. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. GRANVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are prepared to attend a conference to discuss this question?

Dr. ADDISON: I was not aware of it. I am glad to hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ADVERTISEMENTS (HEALTH RESORTS).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the desirability of issuing for sale at post offices stamped postcards with photographic views of British seaside and inland resorts?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): The matter is already under consideration, and I hope that it will be possible to arrive at a decision very shortly.

LOST MAIL BAGS.

Mr. DAY: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of mail bags lost in transit, during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, due to theft, and the amount of compensation paid by the Post Office in respect of these particular losses; and can he state how many
persons were prosecuted during the same period in connection with these thefts or robberies?

Mr. ATTLEE: During the year 1930, 47 bags were lost in course of transit out of approximately 40 million bags earned by rail alone. The amount of compensation paid in respect of these particular losses was just over £500. During the year 17 persons were prosecuted and convicted on charges in connection with mail robberies.

Mr. DAY: Can the Postmaster-General say whether the suggestions made by the committee for the protection of mail bags were put into operation?

Mr. ATTLEE: I must have notice of that question.

OFFICE, NEWTOWN ST. BOSWELLS.

Mr. MATHERS: 58.
asked the Post master-General if he is aware that the volume of work in the Crown post office at Newtown St. Boswells is now greater than it was 20 years ago, when no question of its supersession arose; if he will give particulars of the reduction in business which he considers justifies him in now depriving the office of Crown status; if he will state when the comparisons were made; and if seasonal fluctuations were taken into account?

Mr. ATTLEE: I am making further inquiry and will communicate with the hon. Member.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 59.
asked the Post master-General how many operators per 1,000 subscribers are considered necessary to maintain automatic telephone exchanges and manual exchanges, re spectively?

Mr. ATTLEE: The present average figures are approximately seven operators per 1,000 subscribers' lines at automatic exchanges and 16 at manual exchanges. The exact number of operators required at any Exchange depends on the amount of traffic, which is not necessarily proportionate to the number of lines.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General what villages of over 200 inhabitants are still without a telephone system or telephone call-box in Lindsey?

Mr. ATTLEE: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as these are completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILLOWS (WATERMARK DISEASE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that the watermark disease is spreading rapidly among the cricket-bat willows in Essex, ruining them for sale; and, seeing that this disease is easily spread, whether he will issue an order for all diseased trees to be cut down?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I have been asked to reply. The Forestry Commissioners are aware of the position with regard to watermark disease in Essex; they have already met representatives of the county council with a view to taking action on the lines suggested.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: What is the good of having cricket bats if there are not playing fields on which to play cricket?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS (SENTENCES, FORMBY).

Mr. LOGAN: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of four Liverpool boys, first offenders, sentenced each to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, at Formby, Lancashire, on the 6th instant, for stealing; and if he will inquire into the case with a view to the reduction of the sentences?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The attention of my right hon. Friend having been called to this case, he made various inquiries as a result of which he has felt able to recommend the remission of the remainder of the sentences. This action was taken after full consultation with the Justices, who have the difficult task of maintaining public order.

Mr. LOGAN: Will my hon. Friend say whether copies of the First Offenders Act have been sent to the Justices of Lancashire?

Mr. SHORT: It is the duty of magistrates to make themselves familiar with the Acts which they administer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLATE AND LOAN CLUBS (FRAUDS).

Mr. DAY: 75.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the number of complaints received by his Department for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date with regard to defalcations and fraud in connection with various slate, loan, or other benefit clubs; and can he give particulars of the amounts involved?

Mr. SHORT: The number of complaints received by Metropolitan Police regarding defalcations and fraud in connection with slate, loan and benefit clubs for the 12 months ended 30th April, 1931, was 37, and the total amount of money involved was £7,272 14s. 6½d.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 76 and 77.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether the form of accounts to be presented to the Racecourse Betting Control Board will state the amounts paid for the various types of machines on the various courses;
(2) if the form of accounts to be presented by the Racecourse Betting Control Board will show the cost of the officers and staff maintained in London and Doncaster?

Mr. MORRIS: 78.
asked the Home Secretary whether the form of accounts to be presented by the Racecourse Betting Control Board will state in detail the amounts paid and the firms to which such amounts were paid in respect of machines, and also the payments made to the various contractors for the erection of buildings?

Mr. SHORT: The board's report and accounts for 1930 were presented to the House on Friday last, and my right hon. Friend would suggest that hon. Members should refer to the accounts which will be published and be available in the ordinary course.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

LAND VALUE TAX (VALUERS).

Brigadier-General BROWN: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the numbers of trained valuation officials who will be required for the purpose of the taxation of land values; what qualifications must they have for the purpose; from what sources are they to be drawn; and whether there are sufficient experienced land valuers for the purpose?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): It is estimated that about 1,000 officials with professional qualifications will be required for the purpose of the initial valuation. Only a small addition to the permanent staff will be needed when the initial valuation has been completed. The qualifications will be those prescribed for the existing technical staff of the Valuation Office. No difficulty is anticipated in recruiting experienced staff for the purpose.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In view of the fact that in the case of the last valuation there was great difficulty, will the Financial Secretary assure me that he has enough men without further training for this difficult task?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is what I have already said.

Major COLVILLE: Is this the Government's first attempt to provide direct employment?

INCOME TAX.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the estimated revenue from Income Tax for the year 1930–31 if the figure £1,500 were substituted for £2,000 in Clause 4 of Part II of the Finance Bill, and the higher rates as specified in the second column of the table in the said Clause were then applied?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is estimated that the gain in a full year from such an increase would be about £7,000,000, of which about £500,000 would fall on individuals with total incomes between £1,500 and £2,000 who are not now liable to Surtax and £6,500,000 on the existing body of Surtax payers.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRIDGE, HENLLAN (RECONSTRUC- TION).

Mr. HOPKIN: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the delay in carrying out the work on the bridge at Velindre, Henllan; if he is aware of the large number of unemployed in this area; and if he will cause inquiries to be made as to this delay and the reasons for lack of additional road work in this area?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): My attention has not previously been called to any delay in connection with the reconstruction of the bridge at Henllan. Draft proposals have been discussed with the county surveyor, and my Department is now awaiting the receipt of the final plans. My right hon. Friend understands that there is a considerable amount of unemployment in the district and that the Carmarthenshire County Council have included in their five-year programme four schemes of road and bridge works in this area estimated to cost £9,200, but the details have not yet been submitted.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one side of this bridge has been down for upwards of two years?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 36.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he can give the number of widows of deceased ex-service men who have had their pensions discontinued since 1921 to date owing to alleged irregular conduct, showing separately widows of privates, non-commissioned officers, and commissioned officers, respectively; and the percentage of such cases in each category?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I regret that the records of the Ministry do not enable me to give the information desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (NEWSPAPER REPORTS).

Mr. MATTERS (for Mr. MARLEY): 61.
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the statement published in the "Northern Echo"
of 15th May that summonses are being taken out against certain coalowners in Scotland and South Wales for breaches of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and whether he has considered the matter from the point of view of a breach of the Official Secrets Act being involved?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): My attention has been called to the publication of the statement in question in this and in another newspaper. I have on two occasions explained to the House that I do not think the drastic powers of search and interrogation conferred by the Acts should be exercised except in cases where there is reason to suspect official leakage and where serious issues are involved. No such considerations apply to the present case, and I do not therefore propose to take any action.

Major COLVILLE: Can the Attorney-General say how many miners in Scotland and Wales stand to suffer a loss in earnings as a result of this decision to prosecute?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LANCASHIRE (STATISTICS).

Mr. McSHANE (for Mr. GORDON MACDONALD): 62.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the Housing Acts, 1923 and 1924, during each of the three years ended 31st December, 1930, by the urban districts of Ashton - in - Makerfield, Abram, Ince, Orrell, Billinge, and Standish?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The Abram Council built 50 houses in 1928 and 33 houses in 1929, the Ince Council, 32 houses in 1928, 158 in 1929 and eight in 1930. No houses were built by the other councils named.

DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).

Mr. McSHANE (for Mr. THORNE): 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether any record of excessive increases of rent in connection with decontrolled houses is kept by his Department; whether his attention has been called to the demands made by some estate agents in respect to key-money; and if he will state whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill to safeguard the interests of tenants of decontrolled houses?

Miss LAWRENCE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, but my right hon. Friend understands that the Inter-departmental Committee on the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts has received a number of representations on the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend must, of course, await the report of the Committee.

Mr. McSHANE: Can the Parliamentary Secretary now give us any information as to when the report is likely to be published?

Miss LAWRENCE: I could not reply without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.

Mr. BROCKWAY (for Mr. W. J. BROWN),: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, since the present Government came into office, any committee or any persons, outside the Civil Service, have been appointed to advise upon the accuracy or suitability of the Ministry of Labour index figure as a reflection of the rise in the cost of living either as affecting the wage-earning community as a whole or particular sections of it; if so, whether such committee or persons have furnished a report; and whether the terms of the report or reports will be made public?

Mr. WILLIAM WHITELEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Some inquiries have been made into this matter, but it is not proposed to publish any report.

Mr. BROCKWAY: In view of the dissatisfaction with the present index figure arrangements, is it not possible for the Government to have a thorough inquiry into this matter, and to have a report made upon it?

Mr. WHITELEY: If my hon. Friend puts down a question on those lines, I will see that he gets a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Commander BELLAIRS: With your permission Mr. Speaker and with the leave of the House, I desire to make a short personal explanation. In the
official Communist journal published in Moscow, in connection with some comments on the anti-Soviet campaign in Finland which arose in connection with the persecution of Ingrians by the Soviet Government the "Pravda" makes the following statement:
One of the inspirers of this 'Ingrian campaign' is the well-known 'specialist' on 'forced labour in Russia,' Commander Bellairs, Member of the English Parliament, who is in the pay of Finnish timber traders and who now speaks out as the 'defender of Ingrians.' 
That is a very serious charge against a Member of Parliament—that he is in the pay of any foreign Government or any foreign persons—and, as that charge has been made in the official Communist journal which has the largest circulation in Russia, and is read in many of the capitals of Europe, I desire to take this opportunity of saying that neither directly nor indirectly, in any shape or form, have I received any payment from any Finnish source or any source whatever in connection with Russian agitation or Russian matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1931.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the chair.]

Considered in Committee.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £118,943, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—[Note: £70,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I naturally regret that I have to raise a discussion on foreign affairs in the absence on public business elsewhere of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but the matter is of less consequence in this case, because what I have to say concerns the Prime Minister himself, at least as closely as the Foreign Secretary, and the charge which I have to bring against His Majesty's Government is that the Prime Minister and his Government have allowed the Soviet Government to ignore and flout the solemn warning which they gave when they renewed diplomatic relations, and that they have broken the pledge which they made to the House of Commons on the same occasion. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to make any large demand on the patience or attention of the Committee but in order that I may put this case in its proper setting, and that the illustrations to which I shall call attention may have their proper background, I must ask to be allowed briefly to recall to the memory of the Committee what has been the history of our relations with the Soviet Government during the last 10 years or so.
Relations with the Soviet Government were begun under the Coalition Government, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon
Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when a trade agreement was made and a trade agent of the Soviet Government was received in this country. That Government felt, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, that it was proper to make an effort to bring Soviet Russia back into the comity of nations, and they hoped that a" relations between Russia and other nations developed those things which we had most to complain of in regard to Russian foreign policy might disappear, and be abandoned by the Soviet authorities, and that relations, gradually becoming normal might ultimately become friendly. It was felt at that time that the easiest method of approach, and the most urgent, was in the economic sphere and that it was by renewed trade relations that we should most easily create an atmosphere in which our political differences could be approached with favourable prospects of success.
There was only one political clause in the Trade Agreement. It was one for abstention from hostile action against one another and from interference in one another's internal affairs. Hardly was the ink dry upon that Trade Agreement than the Coalition Government, through the mouth of Lord Curzon, the Foreign Secretary, had to call the attention of the Soviet Government to a breach of that undertaking and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, as Prime Minister, and as an advocate and an earnest advocate of this attempt to secure good relations with the Soviet Government, had to prove to the Soviet emissary, documents in hand, that the excuses and the pretexts which he was offering were false and that the Russian Government had already broken and were persistently breaking their pledges in this respect. This representation, solemnly and forcibly made, would, it was hoped, produce the desired effect. The British Government began then, that long course of patience which it pursued, in different hands, in the subsequent years.
The provocation continued, yet the Coalition Government, always hoping that presently the Soviet Government would become humanised and turn over a new leaf, continued the relations which they had established; they were continued by the late Mr. Bonar Law, and by my right
hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his first Administration, and were still in force in the same form when the first Socialist Government came into office. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, then combining the arduous tasks of Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in his own hands, without taking note or sufficient note, or at any rate without drawing the natural conclusion from the failure of the Soviet Government to keep their engagements so far, went further, gave them de jure recognition, and arranged for an interchange of envoys, which at that time took the form of chargés d'affaires.
That was the position when my right hon. Friend's second Government was formed and when I became Foreign Secretary. From the very early days of my occupancy of that post, I became aware that the breach of the engagement to abstain from hostile action towards the British Empire, with which they were nominally in friendly relations, and to abstain in particular from hostile interference within British territory, which they had solemnly pledged themselves to do, was being persistently and constantly broken. I had various interviews with successive Chargés d'Affaires of the Soviet Government. On each occasion I told the representative of that Government that it was useless to discuss new engagements as long as the old engagement was not kept, and that, before we could advance any further, we must have proof that the Soviet Government would abide by its pledged word and refrain from doing those things from which it had pledged itself to abstain; and I warned it in, I hope, courteous but certainly serious language against a continuation of this course of hostility and provocation.
Unfortunately, those warnings fell upon ears which were deliberately deaf, and after showing a patience which I think is without example in our relations with foreign Governments, in face of very grave provocation, we at last broke off diplomatic relations and we announced that we should not renew them until we were sure that the Soviet Government had ceased from those actions of which we had a right to complain and from which they had bound themselves to abstain. That was the position as long as our Government remained in office.
Then the right hon. Gentleman was once again called upon to undertake the responsibilities of Government. He and his party had announced that they proposed to renew these relations. I think it was a mistake to make that announcement in advance, and not to reserve to themselves full liberty until after they had come into contact with the realities of office and had seen in exactly what conditions that renewal might take place. They themselves had had occasion to complain of the breach by Soviet Russia of her engagements. One would have thought that "once bitten, twice shy," and that, if they were renewing those relations, they would have taken pains before they made any agreement to see that the Soviet Government understood the conditions which they laid down, accepted them in the same sense in which the British Government meant them, and were prepared to meet the British Government with the same good faith which successive British Governments had shown to the Soviet Government.
They took none of these precautions. They signed an agreement without having previously settled any outstanding question. They signed and ratified the agreement knowing that they placed one meaning on the words of it and having fair warning from the Soviet side that they interpreted the same words differently and not merely differently, but contradictorily. They were deliberately blind to the dangers of that action. They said that the Soviet Government knew what the British Government meant; they told us that the British Government knew what they meant and that that should suffice. What has been the result? From first to last the Soviet Government have repudiated the interpretation which His Majesty's Government put upon the document. From first to last His Majesty's Government have been unable to pretend that the Soviet Government were showing any more good faith now than they had shown in the past, or were keeping now the pledges which they had renewed only to break them again; and within a month or two—I am not sure that it was not actually within one month—of the signature of the new agreement, the new Secretary of State was protesting,
as his predecessors had protested, against the breach of a document only just signed.
That is not the only time that the Secretary of State has protested. What satisfaction did he get? What concession to the point of view of the British Government has ever been made by the Soviet Government? What guarantee have they ever offered that they would adhere for the future, even if they had broken them once again, to the solemn pledges which they had given? No, Sir. The Government put up a bluff; the Soviet Government called it. The Government have been unprepared to act. They have become an object of contempt to the Soviet Government, a laughingstock to other nations, and a shame to their own country. I am not going to trouble the House with many quotations, because I know how distasteful to hon. Members opposite it is to listen to what they themselves have said, apart from what their leader has said, but I must make one or two quotations.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in 1924, laid down what should be an axiom of international relationship, and is an axiom accepted by every Government except the Soviet Government of Russia. He said:
No Government will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan revolutions for its overthrow.
4.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked in the Debate on the Address, in reply to the first Gracious Speech from the Throne delivered in this Parliament, whether he adhered to those conditions, and he replied without qualification that he did. A few days later, when he had had further time to think the matter over, the present Foreign Secretary said:
We stand by the declaration we made in 1924 to the effect that we could not allow any direct interference from outside in British domestic affairs, and would insist that the promise given by the Soviet Government to refrain from any act liable to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity of the British Empire, and to restrain from such acts all persons and organisations under their direct or indirect control, including
organisations in receipt of any financial assistance from them, such as the Communist International, which is organically connected with the Soviet Government, should be carried out both in the letter and in the spirit. This is in fact an undertaking that Soviet propaganda will not be tolerated in any form or at any time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1929; col. 901, Vol. 231.]
What have the Government done to maintain those pledges solemnly given to this House, and offered to their country as a security against the dangers which they had incurred from the Soviet Government when it had previously been in. diplomatic relations with them? From that day to this, there has been no cessation of Soviet hostility. Instead of using language which I have quoted, instead of re-affirming the conditions of 1924, they might have taken the line which it pleases the Foreign Secretary to take now, and which the right hon. Gentleman repeated in answer to a question of mine last week. They may say, "Oh, these matters are of no consequence." They may adopt the attitude of Mr. Toots—that nothing matters; we rather like it when the dog bites us. But they did not take that attitude. They said they would not tolerate this action, and they gave a solemn pledge to this House that it should not be tolerated. Since then the propaganda has gone on unchecked by them. They intimated that the action of the Soviet Government was not conducive to the good relations they wished to cultivate, but of any effective protest, or any attempt to protect us against this propaganda, or any attempt to fulfil their pledge to this House, there is not a sign. Their course is to threaten and then withdraw—
Letting I dare not wait upon I would.
There is no more dangerous policy than the policy of threat when you do not mean to back it up—none whatever. Therefore, the policy of His Majesty's present Government cannot be right, whatever view you take of what our relations should be, because it is a policy of threat without any intention of backing it up.
There is another side to their policy—the trade side. As an inducement to the renewal of diplomatic relations, they dwelt upon the importance of securing trade with Russia. It has not been very successful. They have never succeeded with their diplomatic relations in securing
as much trade as America has constantly had without diplomatic relations. What is more important, they have never succeeded in getting the Russians to order goods from this country to the extent of the payments which we made to Russia for goods which were bought from them, and, in spite of the fact that Russia has always had a credit balance on the trade which she could have employed to extend her purchases here, she has preferred to employ it in other purposes than trade, or in other trades than ours. They have given to Russia a larger volume of credit than they have given to all the other countries of the world put together. If you pick them out for special favour, if you give them, through the export credits scheme, greater credit than you give to any other country, when, on the facts, it is clear that they do not need it because they have got a balance of trade already which they can employ for these purchases when they desire to do so. If you treat them thus as a most-favoured-nation, even while they are flaunting your remonstrances and breaking the promise they made, how do you expect to get any redress? For what purpose are all these credits given? To develop the Societ trade system. I am not sure that in the present condition of the world it is to our interest to equip for competition in manufactured products a country which has hitherto not competed in that sphere with us. I am sure that it is not in our interest to lend them credit for military equipment, and I am quite sure that they ought to have no credit at all—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure how far I can permit export credits to be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote. There is a separate and special Vote for export credits, and I could not allow the right hon. Gentleman to make this a principal argument.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not going to make it a principal point, but I am challenging, on the salary of the Prime Minister, the policy adopted by the Government towards Russia.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not the salary of the Prime Minister we are discussing. It is the Foreign Office Vote.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I asked for the discussion on the Prime Minister's
salary, and I understand that the Government preferred that it should be on the Foreign Office Vote.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I wish to correct that statement. It was not on my salary, because things can be raised on the Foreign Office Vote which cannot be raised on my salary.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no grievance against the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope, Mr. Dunnico, you have no grievance against me, because we all three appear to be agreed, if I may reepectfuily include you in that phrase. The Foreign Office Vote is the occasion on which we have the greatest latitude to discuss the foreign policy of the Government, and what I want to challenge is the foreign policy of the Government in its relations to the Soviet Government of Russia. I am not going to discuss the policy of the export grants at large. I confine myself entirely to the use of the export credits in our relations with Russia. I was actually saying at the moment—and it is almost my last sentence on the subject—that I am quite sure that it cannot be in our interest to allow credits of this kind to a Government which is not keeping faith with us, which is not using them purely in the ordinary way of trade, but, in large measure, at any rate, to secure military equipment and military resources for herself.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: May I ask—[An HON. MEMBER: "What are you getting for it?"]—whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the credits given by a statutory committee which is independent of the control of Parliament; and whether it is not a fact that that committee cannot legally grant credits for the export of arms from Britain?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point I lay down is that we are now discussing the Foreign Office Vote, and only matters which come directly under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Office can be discussed. Export credits come under a separate and distinct Vote and are not in order on this Vote.

Mr. GROVES: Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite to cast insinuations against an hon. Member here, and ask, "What is he getting for it?"

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear any insinuation, but if such insinuation were made, it would be distinctly improper.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Mr. PYBUS: Arising out of the question whether it is possible to discuss export credits on this Vote, is not the Department which grants these credits the Department of Overseas Trade under the joint control of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade; and, therefore, is it not in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If there is a separate Vote for a particular subject, that subject must be discussed on that particular Vote. It cannot be discussed on other Votes.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I was under the impression that the refusal to grant credits under this scheme by the late Government was a Government decision and not a Departmental decision. I was under the impression that the decision to grant these credits by the present Government was a Government decision, and I should be surprised to learn that the Department of Overseas Trade took that decision on its own responsibility without any instructions from either the Foreign Secretary or the Cabinet.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not disputing my Ruling. What he says may be perfectly true, but what I am trying to emphasise and to lay down is that no matter what the policy may be, whenever a special Vote is put down to cover a particular and specific subject that subject must be discussed under that specific Vote, and not under any other. That is a long-standing Rule which is always observed in Committee.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall, of course, conform to your Ruling. I will confine myself to saying that to single out for special favours a Government which disregards your remonstrances and breaks faith is not the way to cause it to pay greater attention to your words and to observe greater propriety of conduct towards you in future. My conclusion is that her" we have a Power which has been persistently unfriendly to us from the first day on which we signed the Agreement down to the present time; that, wherever
she has the opportunity to make or increase trouble to the British Empire, she makes that trouble or increases it, be it in China or in India or among the small disaffected elements in our own country. Wherever there is trouble she seeks to foment it. She uses the resources which she possesses—and we help her to increase her resources—not in order to carry on a natural and mutually beneficial trade, but to have in her hands the instrument of revolution, and to use the resources she has produced to wreck this market or that market or the other. To-day it is the corn market of the world, with consequent distress in the Balkan countries, where the great mass of the people are entirely dependent upon their crops for their welfare and their existence. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh as if they supposed that I attributed all the troubles in the corn market of the world to Soviet Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said it!"] I did not. It merely shows that hon. Members opposite have not begun to understand the first thing about it. The policy of the Soviet Government is to follow trouble wherever it arises, and to take advantage of trouble to foment discontent; and, as the Soviet Government are doing that and have persistently done it in regard to raw materials, so they will do it later with the manufactured articles which we by our credits are helping them to produce in future.

Mr. STRAUSS: Will it be in order for subsequent speakers to discuss the matter of Russian dumping?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the argument now being used by the right hon. Gentleman is that certain action which is being taken by the Russian Government was one reason why recognition should not be continued. So long as the discussion is kept within that narrow limit, it is perfectly in order.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My argument is that the Russian Government gave certain undertakings to this Government, and that this Government gave an undertaking to the House of Commons that the undertakings of the Russian Government should be observed; and I am illustrating the way in which every day and in one field after another these undertakings are being broken by the Soviet Government, and showing that the breach is
tolerated by His Majesty's Ministers. They are using their control of trade not for economic prosperity but for revolution; they are building up out of our credit the material and the instrument for an attack upon our security and our prosperity; they are using whatever resources they have and whatever influence they have in order to foment revolution in any country, but above all within British territory. All we ask is that His Majesty's Government should open their eyes to facts which are patent, and should now insist upon the fulfilment of pledges which they secured from the Russian Government, and should themselves fulfil at long last the pledge which they gave to the House of Commons.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that the whole Committee regrets that, public business calling him elsewhere, the Foreign Secretary is not able to reply to the right hon. Gentleman who has opened the Debate. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State will speak later on, and, should details arise, he will be able to answer them. I listened with a good deal of amazement to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He ought to have done two things before he decided to make himself responsible for this Debate. He ought, first, to have reminded himself of his own past, and then he should have equipped himself with some new facts. What single point, specifically stated, has he made against the Soviet Government? What single complaint has he made? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not one!"] My hon. Friends behind me are wrong. He made one, and that one was dumping. Therefore, for the first time in this prolonged controversy on what relations this Government should hold with the Soviet Government, the right hon. Gentleman has discovered that the Soviet Government, or their trading organisation, have, by the dumping of wheat or oats into this country, broken the Trade Agreement. Such a complaint is absolutely absurd.
Let us see what there is in this case. I understood, judging from the Order Paper of the last week or so, that the right hon. Gentleman was going to repeat charges made by the "Times" of 12th May. The Opposition have asked us again and again whether these statements were true. The House was informed by my right hon. Friend the
Secretary for State, first of all, that at the Foreign Office we had no traces of some of the more serious of these allegations. To make sure, we made inquiries of our Ambassador at Moscow. What apparently has happened is that Riga has once again shown itself to be an extraordinarily imaginative purveyor of news. The Ambassador replied that the only publication which he could trace was of extracts from a new programme of the Indian Communist party which had appeared in the "Pravda" of 9th May; it was not issued from Moscow, and not issued by the "Pravda." It is just as though the "Pravda" were to copy some of the stuff issued by the British Communist party, and the fact that it had copied were to become a serious crime justifying a breach of diplomatic relations. That is the fact regarding those paragraphs that cause such very violent agitation in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me—

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I cannot give way. The Foreign Office knows quite as much, and a good deal more, about the 12th May publication than any hon. Member who has not seen the papers. How do we stand? The right hon. Gentleman has said that after a declaration was made in 1924, if the Russian Government did not at once accept it, a breach would be made.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is not happy in his interpretation.

The PRIME MINISTER: If I am not happy in my interpretation, I am happy in my policy. In 1924 this statement was made. The right hon. Gentleman came into Office, and he was challenged again and again by hon. Members behind him. He was asked what he was doing to create a breach with Russia, and he was told that by keeping on diplomatic contact with Russia he was doing something that was degrading to the country and disgraceful to the Government to which he belonged. For three years the right hon. Gentleman went on. He knew all the time that the Trade Agreement had been broken. He never justified himself by saying that the Trade Agreement had
not been broken. He said, for instance, in one of the numerous Debates, on the 25th June, 1926:
If the mere question were, 'Has the Trade Agreement been kept?' I should answer,' It has not.' "—
Yet there was no breach of diplomatic relations. in the same Debate he said:
I say it is perfectly clear to His Majesty's Government, and should be perfectly clear to everybody, as it must be clear to the Soviet authorities, that they are not conforming to that definite engagement in the Trade Agreement.
Perfectly clear!
We are under no misconception as to the way in which the Trade Agreement has been broken.
Later, towards the end of his speech, he used still stronger words. He said:
Engagements are daily and persistently broken under the shadiest and shabbiest of excuses.
Still no breach of the diplomatic relations He went on to explain why there was to be no breach of diplomatic relations. He said:
The only question we have to decide is whether, in view of the situation in this country, and in view of the situation in Europe, it is in our own interest to continue, with our eyes open, these diplomatic relations.
He went on to say:
If I think we can afford, I do not say to neglect "—
and he cannot say that of us cither—
but to pass over some things which might at first sight appear to be unforgiveable, it is because I believe the protection of the people "—
that is, our own people—
by themselves would be even more effective than executive action by the Government on their behalf.
That is the reply to Soviet propaganda in this country. I quite agree with him. No one, no Member of the Government, least of all a Foreign Secretary, can take decisions of this kind without having regard to the larger effect in the world outside, beyond our shores. If we break off diplomatic relations with Russia we introduce not only a new but a disturbing issue into European politics. What the right hon. Gentleman said was: "I know the Trade Agreement has been broken. I know that for two years they have been "heating us, and not playing the game, but under the circumstances I,
as the Foreign Secretary, cannot afford, and, indeed, it would not be my duty if I tried it, to take merely a narrow view of a breach of this agreement. I must consider its repercussions at home and abroad before I make up my mind." The right hon. Gentleman was even more specific towards the end of that speech. As I have really little more to say against him than he said in his own favour a few years ago, I wish the Committee to know precisely what his position was. In that same speech, and in summing up what was in his mind, and what was the feature of his policy he said:
If the Trade Agreement were denounced it would be no good to say it would give us a weapon for fighting disorder us disloyalty or revolution within our own borders. It would create division where we seek union, and would in its echoes abroad increase the uncertainty, increase the fears, increase the instability of European conditions which it is, and ought to be our chief object to remove."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1926; cols. 770–777, Vol. 197.]
That is the right hon. Gentleman's reply to his own speech to-day. In order to make the point clear—and this is the last extract I will give—he said on the 3rd March, 1927, a year after the Debate from which I have been quoting:
Had we to consider to-night nothing but our own domestic situation; had we to consider nothing but our own interest as affected by the Trade Agreement, or by the exchange of diplomatic messages, I do not think I should have waited so long before asking my colleagues to take action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March. 1927; col. 630, Vol. 203.]
He went on to say that it was a much wider issue. What has changed? Time, I admit. There is no virtue in waiting for two or three years and then saying that a new situation has arisen at the end of the third year. As I stated in the House in 1927, when the Arcos raid was made as an excuse for the termination of the Agreement, there was no result of that raid which justified any new situation, and in the same way there is nothing now that ought to influence us other than the very great wisdom and patience which the right hon. Gentleman himself showed an 1925, 1926 and 1927, up to the breaking off of diplomatic relations. At any rate that is where we stand.
I would remind the Committee that this is a very old question. It has been
debated again and again, and the feature of this Debate, at any rate up to now, if nothing more is to be produced than has been produced so far, which marks it out from any of its predecessors, is this, that in preceding Debates there has always been some allegation of some new outburst on the part of the Soviet Government. To-day there is nothing requiring us to vary the right hon. Gentleman's principles of the diplomatic handling of the situation. But it has gone far beyond that, and the problem of the handling of the Russian situation by the Foreign Office has really come down to facts and considerations of results and consequences. What would be predominating in the right hon. Gentleman's mind if at this moment he were to transfer his position from that side of the House to this? He knows perfectly well that if he were sitting here now the reply which he gave in 1926 and which I have read would return as the dominating factor in his mind. That is true of other nations—France. We can complain about Moscow. I think that sometimes we complain and rather show our own weakness by complaining. After all, one gets a little bit too indifferent to the same criticisms from any quarter, but I do feel sometimes that the kind of squirm and the gasp that follows some of these rubbishy judgments passed by people in Moscow who neither know this country nor its institutions, nor the individuals who are responsible for its institutions, and who are far more interested apparently in maintaining enmity between their own people and the rest of the world than in doing their best to broaden the way to peace and to understanding is scarcely worthy of us.
I have not changed my opinion, not at all, and at the present moment nothing has appeared above the horizon to my knowledge which should warn us that I had better be careful in my language lest I should have to change it. France has been treated even worse than we have been, and France retains diplomatic relations. Germany is closer to the danger, closer to propaganda, has suffered far more not merely in words thrown at her, but in deeds done within Germany. If there was any uprising, any trouble, Germany would be in trouble, would be involved and whirling in the maelstrom, long before we, either at home
or abroad, would be involved; and yet Germany to-day retains diplomatic relations with Moscow. In 1924, that red letter year in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, after years of coalition and Tory Government, this country had not found a proper relationship with Russia, but in that year a declaration was made as to what that relationship should be. What was it? The dispute was not regarding the Soviet Government itself directly and specifically, but regarding the relations between the Soviet Government and the Third International. To-day I have noticed a laxity which is new, which has not appeared before, in the language of the right hon. Gentleman when describing that position. The dispute is this. Is the Soviet Government responsible to a sufficient degree to make it proper for us to take cognisance of the activities of the Third International? Having stated the question I am going to answer it. The Soviet Government say "No." We say "Yes," and we continue to say "Yes," and we say it because we understand what we are talking about. But after all, what one has to do is to work out these things in their consequences in policy.
Take the propaganda of Communism in this country. I do not need to answer about that. That was answered by a predecessor in office of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). Mr. Joynson-Hicks, as he then was, cornered by his people behind him as the right hon. Gentleman was, politically, said, in effect, "The propaganda of Communist opinion is legitimate. The Government just watches it. It is purely a question of internal action. If sedition is likely to produce results, then the Government will take action." I am sure that the Attorney-General, sitting beside me, will somewhat demur to the form in which I have made my statement, but nevertheless it is perfectly sound; that the propaganda of Communism in this country, like the propaganda of Mormonism, is a spread of opinion to which a Government cannot be indifferent but regarding which Government action depends upon what relates to the security, well-being and tranquillity of the State. If the Communist likes to deliver his speeches in Hyde Park then
we shall deal with him, if it is worth while, if it is necessary if he becomes a menace to this State. The Soviet Government and the Third International are not involved in, that at all. In that respect I want to say that the louder they talk, the more offensive and aggressive language they use, the more verbally they threaten the security of the State, the more we know that they are doing it because they know they have failed in their propaganda. Political prosecution must have some relation to the effect on the State. We have been told that the foreign Press are publishing information and incitement, and so on, but we are doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did, and exactly what any other Government, with the exception of a Communist Government, would do. The only difference between what we are doing and what the Communist Government would do is this: We give liberty for the expression of opinion, and we shall continue to do so; we will never interfere with the expression of opinion except under the conditions which I have indicated.
In Moscow not long ago a friend of mine made certain remarks to a local authority about certain things published in Communist papers here during recent weeks. The authority in Moscow remarked: "You have no business to blame us for that; you have yourselves to blame. If those people came over here and published those things in our papers we should shoot them, and why do you not do it too?

Mr. SMITHERS: There would be a lot of by-elections.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the difference between the treatment any Government in this country would mete out to the Communists and the treatment of a Government that is supposed to be so much superior to us, and in advance of us, in human civilisation. I do not believe it in the least. It is not for me to suggest it, but if the proposition is put up to-day—I am not sure that it is, and I am not quite sure what is put up—that on account of the publication of such things as were quoted on the 12th of May the Government should be disturbed, then I ask credit from the Committee that the Government have
not been disturbed in the least, and I give the Committee an assurance that they will not be disturbed in the least.
I understood that India was going to be mentioned to-day, and there is one sentence which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) uttered with which I venture to agree, and it was the sentence in which he said that the agents of the Third International are very expert fishers in troubled waters—I vary it in my own way—the agents of the Third International are very expert fishers in troubled waters, and India at the present moment undoubtedly gives them a certain opportunity. But here again let us be realists. There is a great deal of excitement in India. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in his place. India is in a very unsettled condition, and that excitement may be increased by "Pravda" articles and propaganda. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping believes that he must conduct this propaganda and protest against the Government policy in India, and against the Opposition policy in India as well. I am not blaming him at all. I know the right hon. Gentleman too well to believe that he is doing anything but carrying out a very deep sense of his duty, which is most uncomfortable to him, but if something that is merely mischievous, if expressions of views only stir up more strife in India and do not strengthen those who are moving towards a reasonable frame of mind and a reasonable settlement, then the right hon. Gentleman is to be condemned.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the Prime Minister suggest that I or anyone else have endeavoured to provoke rebellion and anarchy? If the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that, where is the parallel?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order, Mr. Dunnico, I am a little puzzled about the limits of this Debate. Are we discussing the Foreign Office Vote? If so, I would like to ask if this is the proper place for the discussion upon which the Prime Minister is now entering, or should that question be dealt with only upon the Vote for the India Office?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made use of several illustrations which did not seem to me to be strictly in order. I understand that the Prime Minister now is replying to the argument that such expressions of opinion as might disturb India should be made a reason for severing diplomatic relations with Russia. I understood that that was the argument. If the right hon. Gentleman had been discussing Indian policy, I should have certainly called him to order.

The PRIME MINISTER: Then I am in the same position as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, but I wish to keep in your hands, Mr. Dunnico, very closely. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"] Before I leave this point, I think it is only fair that I should say that I never had in mind that my right hon. Friend desired deliberately to stir up trouble, but it is the influences that make for trouble, whether deliberately done or unconsciously done, that we have to take into account. If I had been permitted to pursue that subject, I was going to deal with the point as to how far it had been proved that Soviet Government agents had gone to India, but will the Committee take it that I had that in mind. The position is—I am not discussing Indian policy—that the Indian Government have before them the problem of handling incitement and disorder, and that is a problem internal to themselves. All I can say, so far as the Foreign Office is concerned, and the Government generally, is that the Indian Government have never asked for any power to deal with the internal situation of India that the Government here have not granted. So far as Soviet influence is concerned exactly the same reasons which were present in the right hon. Gentleman's mind in 1926 are still present, and lead us to what I am perfectly certain is the sound conclusion, that diplomatic relations with Russia need not be broken. We indulge in protests like those the right hon. Gentleman indulged in, but we are pursuing methods of negotiation and exchange of views, and statements made about what has actually happened, and there is no reason why the diplomatic relations should be broken.
I do not want to go into the question of export credits, but the Foreign Office is very much interested in that, and I will give one or two figures. It may be that the trade returns from Russia are disappointing, and I think we are all agreed about that. We all wish they were better, but when the trade agreement was abrogated and denounced in 1927 what happened? Trade went down as a result of the Foreign Office action. When the new contract was made trade began to go up, and it is very extraordinary that in the first three months of 1930 the exports of British products to Russia were £1,100,000 and in the first three months of 1931 £1,500,000.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the orders are going down?

The PRIME MINISTER: The unfortunate thing is that orders are going down everywhere all over the world, and they are going down much more in respect of other countries sending goods into Russia than as regards ourselves. British trade with Russia in the first three months of this year—compared with last year when our exports were going down—has gone up by at least £400,000. Admitting that breaches have taken place, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted during every month of his office, we are now asked, "Do they justify a break?" We say, "No," for the same reasons that induced the right hon. Gentleman to say "No."
5.0 p.m.
If we broke, should we be in a better position to handle the situation to-day? We say no. What justification has the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues for coming to the conclusion that, as the result of the break in 1927, the political situation cleared up and it was easier for them to handle the problems that they were complaining so much about when they decided to make the break? If we broke, the situation in India would not be improved; it would not be imprived in China; it would not be improved here; it would not be improved in any part of the world where we have interests and where at the moment we are facing unsettlement. Is there any hope in a position being created such as that after the Arcos raid? We say there is decidedly no hope whatever, and, being
realists, and facing facts—[Interruption.]—I am sure that hon. Members opposite, after their great display in facing facts, will excuse my reminding them that that rather curious philosopher, but very penetrating man, Anatole France, described a fact as a very complicated arrangement. It is very marvellous, and I am sure it is a great revelation to the hon. Gentleman who made that interjection. We shall continue to face facts; we shall continue to consider the consequences of political policy; we shall continue to take what action is effective; we shall continue to refuse to take action which is not effective; we shall continue, in facing facts, not to be led by prejudice, and certainly not by news from Riga. That being the case, I hope that the Committee will support us, not only in what we have done, but in carrying on that policy in the future.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I am sure that the Committee are amazed at the terms of the speech which we have just heard from the Prime Minister. He said, shortly before he concluded, "I do not know what the proposition is which is being put up to the Government to-day." Everyone else in the Committee knows what the proposition is. The proposition that is being put up to the Government to-day is that the Soviet Government, through their emissaries, through the Comintern and the Third International, are plotting the downfall of the British Empire in every part of the world. In the words of the special pledge given by the Soviet Ambassador when he took up office, they are plotting to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity of Great Britain. The Prime Minister made light of Press reports in Russia, and said that little attention could be paid to them; but may I refer him to a document which was published in May of last year, considerably after the pledge was given by the Soviet Ambassador, to which, at any rate, that criticism cannot apply? It is the Official Report of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, of which many thousands of copies were printed. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to page 91 of that document, he will find these words:
We have a difficult path in India. In spite of everything we are not idle. From the platform of the National Congress, in
the military camps, in the workers' quarters, in the peasants' fields, everywhere where we can penetrate we are at work, in spite of heavy Imperialist pressure. We have already concrete plans to deal blows in the rear if Imperialism adopts the offensive.
It then goes on to say—and this is very material to present affairs in India—
India is the most vulnerable spot from which it is possible to deliver British Imperialism a mortal blow. Every section of the Comintern must co-operate with us, and each in his own country must facilitate our work. With such co-operation, the day is not distant when we shall hurl British Imperialism into the Indian Ocean.
The Prime Minister smiles at that quotation, but it is a quotation which can be verified. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is by his side; I have given him the reference, namely, the Official Report of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, and these words occur on page 91. They are a direct incitement to the agents of the Comintern throughout the world, and especially in, India, to incite to revolution against the British power and to cause revolution in India. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to a few pages later—I think it is page 100—he will see these words:
The fundamental task of the Comintern must be to concentrate all its forces for organising work in the vital centre of British Imperialism, India, because just here it may be paralysed and receive its deathblow.
It is idle, in view of the information in the possession of the Government, to say that the Government do not know that the agents of the Comintern are penetrating every village in India at the present time, that they are inciting the villagers against any ides, of an. arrangement being arrived at between that country and Great Britain, and that their idea is to cause a revolution which will turn Great Britain out of India altogether. The Prime Minister talks in an airy way about the Trade Agreement, but I would like to ask him, is the definite pledge which was made a condition of the resumption of diplomatic relations to have any force or not? It was put into the forefront of this Trade Agreement, which was signed on the 20th December, 1929, and, as the Foreign Secretary has informed us, it was a sine qua non of the signing of that agreement. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has referred to this specific pledge. Its exact words were:
The Contracting Parties solemnly affirm their desire and intention to live in peace and amity with each other, and "—
and these are the important words—
to refrain and to restrain all persons and organisations under their direct or indirect control, including organisations in receipt of financial assistance from them, from any act, overt or covert, liable in any way whatsoever to endanger the tranquility or prosperity of any part of the territory of the British Empire or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. HAYCOCK: That means that we ought to restrain you.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the Prime Minister suggest that these words have been carried out? He makes light of the quotation from the "Pravda," which he says was merely a recital of resolutions which had been passed by the Communist party in India; but he omits to say that those resolutions were quoted with approval. It is not as though such a thing appeared in a British newspaper. We all know that the "Pravda" is an official Government newspaper; it is the direct representative of the Comintern; and what, perhaps, might be put on one side if it appeared in a British newspaper, cannot be so treated when it appears in a paper like the "Pravda," which is published under the direct auspices of the Soviet Government, and in which nothing can appear unless it is specially authorised by that Government.
I submit that it is idle for the Prime Minister to say, as he did this afternoon, "We will never interfere with an expression of opinion." The quotations which I have given are very much more than an expression of opinion. They are, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of all people who have any knowledge of the interpretation of documents or manifestos, a direct incitement to the people of India in particular; and not only in India, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham pointed out, wherever there is any difficulty, whether it be in Egypt, in this country or elsewhere, there you will find the emissaries of the Comintern and of the Soviet Government attempting to make mischief, in direct contravention of the express pledge which was given by the Ambassador on assuming office.
I cannot understand how' the Prime Minister can say that he does not know what is the proposition that is being put up to-day. With an airy wave of the hand he ignores the fact, which is known to every citizen in this country, that these agents are going about in every village in India stirring up strife. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say, when he replies, whether he can deny that, and, if he has not information on the subject, I would ask him to consult the Secretary of State for India. One of the greatest difficulties in the way of the Government in coming to any arrangement at the present time, either with Congress or with Mr. Gandhi or anyone else, is the fact that these agents of the Comintern are going about in India urging that no such arrangement should be made, and also urging that the people of India should seize all their lands and turn the British Government and the British Raj out of India altogether; and, much more than that, they do not even say that it should be replaced by Congress or by Mr. Gandhi, but they say that a Socialist Soviet Republic should be established. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer, as I know that there is only a short time for the discussion of this matter, but I do hope that the Under-Secretary in his reply will not imitate the Prime Minister and say that he does not know what is the proposition which is put up to-day. I have stated what I believe is felt very strongly by the great majority of Members on this side of the Committee at any rate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will specifically deal with the quotations which I have given, and which, in my opinion cannot be set aside.

Mr. J. JONES: I do not pretend to the extensive knowledge of my hon. Friends opposite regarding India, China, Russia and all other places on the face of the earth, but I have read a little about the history of Russia, and I know what has happened in recent years. No protest was made in this House when the money of Great Britain was being spent to uphold the White Terror in Russia. No protest was made when those who were carrying on a campaign for freedom in Russia found themselves in Siberia in the days of the Tsars. Hon. Members opposite
were here then, and they are here to-day, but they have only discovered the evils of Russian government when there has been a change. I do not accept the principle of the change; the more things change, the more they remain the same. The only difference is that now we have the dictatorship of what is called the proletariat, and before we had the dictatorship of people who thought that God specially appointed them to govern the world. They have gone west; now we have to go east. We are discovering now that the Government of Russia is playing its part in the dictation of affairs in Europe, as it is entitled to do. With its enormous population, for good or for evil it has the right to play its part. Their system of government is not our system; their ideals are not the same as ours. They have a different conception of methods of government, because they think they need other forms of government, and I Cannot for the life of me understand how Members of this House, representing the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, can find fault with the form of government which the Russians have adopted. There are two countries in the world which are practically dominated by the" village community system. You may call the Government of Russia what you like, but, so far as details of administrative government are concerned, Russia and India are the two most equal countries in the world. You have village government—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not now discussing the merits or demerits of the Soviet or Russian system of government. What we are discussing is whether the present Soviet Government have taken such action as to justify His Majesty's Government severing relations with them.

Mr. JONES: I was trying to lead up to the main argument by giving a little bit of history to some of those who had not read it. I am one of those ignorant Members of the House who do not know much, but what little I know I try to assimilate and convey to others. A Government has been created in Russia as the result of the revolution. They may not look at things the way we do. I do not look at things in just the same way that they do. There would not be a
Government in Europe to-day that we could have diplomatic relations with if the policy of the party opposite was carried into full effect. They are all revolutionary Governments. Our Foreign Secretary has been patting Monsieur Briand on the back. That is a revolutionary Government. It sent all the aristocrats of France over to England to find a safe harbour. Their system of Government is altogether different from ours. I have read of prominent Members of our Parliament denouncing the French Government of that time. The whirligig of time brings its revenges, and every change in government means the same thing. The Bourbons opposite never learn anything and never forget anything. The Russians have a right to pursue their own policy and we have no right to stop them. What have we been doing? Have we not been carrying on propaganda in Europe against the Russians? Have we not financed armies to fight against them? What right have we to protest? What right have we to say what we will do in the way of patronising the enemies of the Rusian Republic? What right have we to assume a tone of moral respectability and say that what we can do with impunity they must not do with a long spoon? I belong to a fraternity which has been persecuted as much as any by the Soviet Government, but that is their funeral and not ours.
When you have broken off diplomatic relations have you made things better? Can you afford to ignore 150,000,000 people between you and India? Is it any wonder, in view of the attitude you have taken up, that the Russians have done their best to dig their way into India? A countryman of mine once said that Ireland was going to be the graveyard of the British Empire. Take care that India does not become the graveyard of the British Empire if the policy that you are adumbrating is going to be carried into effect. Russia cannot be ignored now. It is a different Russia from what it was. Although I do not agree with their policy and their methods of government, I do not believe in dictatorships, whether they come from the slum or the palace. Dictatorships have always been and will always be wrong, and eventually the people will assert themselves against the dictators.
In the meantime, clean your own doorstep before you teach other people improved laws of sanitation. You are the cause of their not being clean. Nearly all the Members opposite who have taken part in the Debate have identified themselves with the enemies of republicanism in Russia. They have supported the Koltchaks and Denikins and all the other wasters in order to try and save a rotten Empire from its inevitable end. Now they ask us what we are going to do about it. We are going to pursue the policy the Government have pursued of trying to use common sense and human reason. We do not agree with everything that Russia does, but we are not going to slaughter our own people to make a Roman holiday. We are not going to have another war. War will be all right for the people when they are about 80. I hope, when the next war comes, we shall start conscription at 80 and not at 18. Then there would not be so many patriots on the benches opposite. All we are asking is that we shall have common sense in international affairs, and that we shall meet Russia in a fair and square way.
I do not care what Ambassadors do. They do a lot of funny things. They have been doing funny things this week. They have been calling one another nice names and have then gone home to conspire against each other, as they always do. They have their own national interests to study. They have to see which way the wind blows. On these benches we always like to read the reports of the conferences that Ambassadors have between them in "Punch." It is not the meetings of the Ambassadors that matter. It is the meetings of the bankers and the capitalists of the various countries that settle the job. The Chancellors, after all, go out to try to represent the interests of their countries, but the other people are behind the scenes to dictate the policy of their countries. The Russian Government has done its best to carry out the policy that it believes in. I do not pretend to know much about it, and I am glad I do not. Diplomatic relations up to now have been dipsomaniac relationships. The people have always been sacrificed to the hole-and-corner meetings, the conversations, the negotiations and all the things that do not matter.
We are asked to denounce Russia. Will you propose to denounce any other country in Europe except Russia? Much as we may disagree with her policy, why is Russia singled out for special attack? Is she the only country that carries on political propaganda? We ourselves are engaged in the same policy. France is engaged in the same policy. The French Foreign Office is carrying on propaganda against the proposed economic union between Austria and Germany. Every country in the world is engaged in the same policy, in the preferment of its own interests at the expense of some other country. Yet Russia is the criminal. Speaking as a back bencher, I say let us have an understanding with Russia. If hon. Members opposite imagine that they are going to get Labour men to walk into the Lobby in support of a policy of breaking off negotiations they are making a big mistake.
The Russian psychology is different from that which some of our people have, and I am glad that it is different. I am not altogether converted to modern political methods in the sense of being a diplomatist. I say what I think and think what I say. You are talking about war, because that is what it means. It is the beginning of it. Language with you is meant to hide your thoughts, but, so far as we have been able to understand your language, it means nothing else. Russia is to be ostracised. One of the greatest countries in Europe is to be turned into a wilderness in international affairs. If that does not point to war, what does it point to? Let those who want another great war have it. I only hope that the class to which I belong will shoot their sons before they allow them to take part in another war on the lines of the last one. We will not stand it.
Those who have been talking to-day give me the impression that the only thing in their minds is that Russia is to be humiliated, just as they wanted to humiliate France 100 years ago under somewhat similar conditions. They have never been the friends of any revolutionary movement in any country. What friendship have they displayed for the Spanish republicans? None at all. All the bouquets have been thrown at Alfonso. He has not even been asked to sign on at the Employment Exchange.
There has been more friendship shown to the defeated monarchists of Spain than to the workers in other parts of the world after a successful revolution. This Motion is simply an attempt to bolster up reaction in Europe and, just as we backed up the reactionaries in Russia in the early days of the revolutionary movement, just as we backed up the anti-revolutionaries in France, just as we have supported nearly all the reactionaries in every country in Europe once again we are joining in the procession to back up the people who are out to destroy the great working-class movement of the world.

Sir RENNELL RODD: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his historical analogies and his accounts of former chicanery in diplomacy. I have one or two points to put which may seem interrogatory rather than critical, but they will undoubtedly become critical if the answer is not that which I should hope and expect to get. One of the disabilities which Members of the House always have to encounter in trying to form a just appreciation of activities and conditions in Russia is the difficulty they have in obtaining any real official information on the subject. Questions addressed to the Foreign Secretary meet with answers which are almost always nebulous or non-committal. It is perhaps, not altogether unnatural that it should be so.
The Prime Minister's speech gives us a certain insight into the difficulty of maintaining relations of peace and amity with what we must call a friendly country and, so far as I could make out, the burden of his speech was, "How much are we to overlook?" That the information should be somewhat nebulous comes, I think, from the fact that the information in the possession of the authorities themselves is very often rather nebulous, and the reason is not far to seek. Our representatives, who should be in a position to keep them informed, have limitations and restrictions put upon their liberty of movement in Russia, and that makes personal observation and intercourse with those from whom they could obtain unprejudiced opinions almost impossible. I have not been in contact for a year or two with any of the official representa-
tives in Russia of any other country, but I have been told that things are a little better than they were not very long ago. A former colleague of mine who at one time represented in Russia a foreign Government which anticipated us in renewing relations, told me of a discovery which he made, in his own bedroom at the Embassy, of a microphone fixed into the wall behind the curtains of his bed which would enable any observations he might make to his wife to be transmitted at once to headquarters.

Mr. MATTERS: Is this Edgar Wallace?

Sir R. RODD: No. I do not think that it is quite becoming to mention the name of the gentleman I am quoting, but he was a foreign representative of some distinction. I think that it would be a little too much to expect me to go further than that.
Some weeks ago, when a question was addressed to the Under-Secretary of State in this House, in reference to the limitation and restriction of the movements of our diplomatic officers, the answer was given that we reserved to ourselves certain powers of restriction which we should be very reluctant to abandon. In the history of diplomacy, if you go back a little way, you will certainly find that those powers which are probably inherent in every State are often pretty rigorously exercised. In the 16th and 17th Centuries the Sultans of Constantinople made it a practice of sending a newly-arrived envoy to the castle of the Seven Towers where he had to live in small stone-walled chambers very like dungeons until he had presented his credentials and declared his business. The Republic of Venice, more courteous in external appearance, was equally rigorous in restricting intercourse, and inflicted the penalty of banishment upon any unauthorised person who was found discussing affairs of State with a foreign representative. Consequently, in order to find out what was going on, they had to take into their service certain retainers, obviously spies. Something of the same kind existed also in the Republic of Piedmont up to the end of the 17th Century. But that is all very old history. When we are told, in cases where the excuse is made for this restriction of liberty of our representatives in Russia, that we reserve certain
similar powers to ourselves, the first question which occurs to me to ask the Under-Secretary of State is, whether he can cite a single instance in any civilised State of those powers having been exercised within the last 100 years, or, for a matter of that, if he likes, the last 200 years until they were enforced by the Soviet Union in Russia?
If the activity of a mission abroad is simply to be limited to the forwarding home of official documents, official Press articles in translation, or to presenting occasionally a claim or putting a question to which the answer returned is almost invariably unfavourable, one is inclined to question whether the sum of £17,000 a year paid in salaries alone, not to reckon the housing of the Mission because—that is always under another account—is rather a large price to pay for a mission which is debarred from exercising its functions in a manner which has been generally recognised in the comity of civilised nations. How different is the attitude of our Government in such cases. In spite of those powers which they would be reluctant to abandon, how scrupulously do they distinguish between the unofficial organs of the Press and the official organs in a country where nothing can be printed, and very little said without having received the sanction of the ruling oligarchy. How submissively we accept the assurances that the Soviet Government are unable to control those agencies which use their country for giving publicity with the object of undermining the Governments of all other countries and denouncing especially the British Empire as the main obstacle to bringing about that condition under which, Lenin himself said, the Soviet experiment, which was the introduction of the Communistic state into all the surrounding countries, could alone become a success. How blandly, when the Red Trades Unions International Bureau at Moscow publishes the plan of campaign for undermining the British Empire, we accept the view that the hands are Esau's and decline to admit for a moment that the voice is Jacob's.
Even occasions for propaganda seem to be readily conceded in this country. Not many days ago, I have been informed, a high official of the Soviet Embassy came down to this House and addressed
a group in one of the Committee Booms here. Of course, I shall be told that meetings in Committee Booms are private—that is so—and that there is no objection to such a course. My point is rather a different one. The conditions under which foreign missions are received in all countries to-day include the unwritten law—the unwritten law which I have never known to be neglected with impunity in any of the many countries in which I have lived—that foreign representatives shall refrain from identifying themselves with any particular political party or group. It is almost inconceivable to me that it could have been possible for a member of a foreign Embassy to come down to this House, and in a Committee Boom, address a political party without an immediate demand for his recall.
There are a great many points to which I should like to draw attention, but the time at our disposal is very short, and I do not think that it would be fair upon other hon. Members were I to attempt to occupy the time of the Committee longer. It is to those few points I particularly wish to draw attention, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State may give his answer to that part of them, at any rate, which he has heard.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I wish to deal with the last point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saint Marylebone (Sir B. Rodd), which was that the secretary to the Soviet Embassy came to this House and told us how Russia was progressing, and also told us all about the five-year plan. I think that it was a mistake to confine that lecture to the Members of this party. I understand that M. Sokolnikoff is going to talk to the Liberals. They also should be able to learn something about the five-year plan. I hope that there will be a further meeting, and that he will invite the Front Bench opposite and all the back benchers of the Conservative party to come and listen, and find out what is going on in Russia. If he has established a precedent by addressing a meeting in this House, it is a good precedent.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: May we invite Mussolini on the same basis?

HON. MEMBERS: Certainly!

Mr. HAYCOCK: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member mentioned M. Mussolini, because he has already visited this country. There was no objection to that visit. M. Mussolini was received with great honour. But there is a marvellous difference in the attitude of hon. Members opposite when it is a question of dictatorship in Italy and when it is a question of dictatorship in Russia. The only difference between Italy and Russia is that in Russia they are using their power and their dictatorship in order to give a square deal to the common people.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Debate is quite wide enough without introducing irrelevant matters. The only question before the Committee now is as to whether Russia has permitted breaches of the Agreement which justifies taking certain action.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I beg your pardon. It was rather the stupid interjection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I say that it is perfectly legitimate for the secretary of the Soviet Embassy to come to this House and tell us all about what is happening in Russia—their hopes, desires and ambitions. It was one of the finest lectures to which I have ever listened, and I hope that if M. Sokolnikoff will do the same thing in regard to hon. Members opposite every Member opposite will avail himself of the opportunity and go and listen to him, and find out what he has to say. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saint Marylebone indicated that the Russians indulge in terrible propaganda, and that their great desire is to bring about the downfall of the British Empire. Attention has been called to what has been written in the "Pravda," the official paper controlled by the Russian Government. If there is anything in the Agreement concerning propaganda, it has to cut both ways. An article in the "Pravda" will not have any more effect upon uninformed Russian opinion than an article in the "Daily Mail" or the "Daily Express" will have upon uninformed British opinion. If there is such a thing as the Russians controlling their Press, there ought to be such a thing as preventing our Press from stirring up bad blood and fanning the fires of prejudice and ignorance. There was, perhaps, something to be said
for taking action under the Defence of the Realm Act during the War, but if we want a square deal, as far as propaganda is concerned, we must see that propaganda factors in this country are also suppressed. Nearly every Tory speech which is now delivered from John o'Groats to Land's End, contains anti-Russian propaganda. Not only that, but they do not take the trouble to be very truthful. They lie innocently, but they lie. There have been many stunts against Russia—I do not know how many stunts there have been, but, perhaps, they will almost be in the thousands—but I do not know any of them which have been built upon the solid rock of truth or fact. You have lied., lied, lied, and you keep on lying; and you have to get a fresh lie—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I call your attention, Mr. Dunnico, to the fact that the hon. Gentleman, addressing Members sitting on this side of the Committee, has just said "You have lied, lied, lied, and you keep on lying? I move that those words be taken down.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member addressed those remarks to Members opposite, and to individual Members, it is entirely improper and out of order, and they should be withdrawn. Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw them without my asking the Clerk to take them down.

Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order. I have listened to my hon. Friend during this Debate. As a matter of fact, he has not mentioned a single name in regard to anyone lying; his remarks were general.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member was making the statement complained of, my attention was diverted. If the hon. Member did accuse hon. Members opposite of lying, it is a most improper accusation, and I hope he will withdraw it.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I do not accuse, directly or indirectly, hon. Members opposite of lying. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did you mean?"] I will explain. It is very simple. Statements have been made on platforms all over the country. I will not say that they are lies. I think the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) called such things terminological inexactitudes.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the point of Order raised by my right hon. Friend, I understood you to ask the hon. Member whether he would withdraw the insulting observation that he made respecting those who sit on this side of the House, and I gathered that he was going to make an explanation and to make the honourable amende which is customary in such circumstances, but he now appears to be adding to his offence by embroidering.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member had withdrawn the words.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Of course, I withdraw. I have not accused, neither do I now accuse, any hon. Members opposite of deliberately lying or of saying what they believe to be untrue, hut I am going to say, and I am going to say it as emphatically as I can, and with deliberation, that lies have been told about Russia. [Interruption.] Yes. I know that the right hon. Member for Epping is there. Sometimes I wish he were all there.

Sir W. DAVISON: The hon. Member says that we make statements that are inaccurate. Will he deal with the point that I made from the report of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern? They are not my words; they are from the official document.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I will deal with that. That was in the sixth year of the Labour Government. It was another Government that was there at that time. We are not talking about what happened in the sixth year following the November revolution, but what is happening in the year 1931. In other words, the hon. Member opposite is about six years out of date.

Sir W. DAVISON: It was published in May last.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Let me come back to my point, as to whether or not deliberate lies have been told. I am going to show that there has been propaganda, deliberate, inexcusable and very dangerous, against Russia. I would remind hon. Members that a responsible Government Department, Scotland Yard, forged the whole newspaper, "Pravda." Let us not be too squeamish. I am reminding
hon. Members that Scotland Yard forged "Pravda." They imported the type and included in the forged edition of "Pravda" all kinds of lies, and they nearly got away with it. They printed it, they forged it, but they made one mistake. [Interruption.] I do not know how many mistakes your parents made, but they made one mistake, and you are that one.

Mr. BRACKEN: Has the hon. Member a right to be offensive?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to be offensive.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I am sure that my hon. Friend opposite will believe me that I do not mean to be personally offensive, but it is very difficult to get on with one's arguments, particularly when one is confronted with a snigger. Hon. Members opposite will get more than they want about "Pravda." "Pravda" was forged, from the title to the headlines and everything by a responsible Government Department, and it was found out in a most peculiar way. There is a law that the printers must put their imprint, their name and address at the bottom of the last column. In this case the London printers who had printed the forged "Pravda"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Luton printers "]—the Luton printers had put their name and address at the bottom of the last column. They cut off the name and address, put the papers into big bundles and sent them in a British warship to Riga. The game was flourishing merrily and everything was going according to plan until two working compositors brought a forged "Pravda "into the office of the" Daily Herald." The matter was brought up in this House, questions were asked and the result was that Sir Basil Thomson, the chief instigator of this business, had to retire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]. Never mind shame—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to state his argument, but he must not be offensive in stating it.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I do not want to be offensive to anyone. I am merely pointing out facts. It is a most serious thing. We are talking about the relations between this country and Russia. We
are suggesting that there can be no such thing as false, lying, deceiving propaganda. I am suggesting that here there is a concrete, positive proof that not an individual but a Government Department was responsible for a forgery, a nasty forgery, of the Russian newspaper "Pravda." Hon. Members opposite object. What of all the stories about the nationalisation of women. Was that propaganda built on the rock of truth, or was it sheer lies? What about the other fairy stories? What about the last story of the slave labour in the Arctic circle? The notable thing about the last lies is that they come from the most incompetent liars of this age. They do not understand the business of lying. [Interruption.] If you do not, a little later you might.

Mr. BRACKEN: Is the hon. Member entitled to be so offensive?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If we had fewer interjections, and the hon. Member would address his remarks to the Chair, the Debate would proceed more smoothly.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Allegations have been made against Russia that were too silly for words. We were told that there were affidavits. Those affidavits have a certain market price. They are bought and sold. We were told that these poor people were working in the Arctic circle, in the winter time, where it was so cold that the ground never thawed the whole year round. The truth is that where the ground never thaws the whole year round you would not get even moss to grow, let alone trees.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with the subject before the Committee.

Mr. HAYCOCK: The only thing that it has to do with it is that I have made an assertion that anti-Russian propaganda has been built up on a foundation of sheer lies. Ever since the November revolution we have had nothing but lies concerning Russia. Until we have another little war with Russia I suppose hon. Members will not be satisfied. They will still want this kind of propaganda to go on. It is a very dangerous business for, sooner or later, this kind of thing leads to war. What do hon. Members opposite want? I make the definite
statement that for years and years and years there has been hostile propaganda carried on by hon. Members opposite on practically every Tory platform in the country, and it is being carried on in the Press. We are entitled to know what they do want with Russia. Do they want another Arcos raid, with dynamite, pneumatic drills and the rest of it, or do they want a war? The Russians may not care very much about us and we may not care very much about them, but there is this to be said that the Russians have not done anything against us in a concrete sense. I could understand the Russians carrying on propaganda against us. Go back over the history of the last few years. The history of our intervention, the history of the blockade, the history of the illegal war conducted by the right hon. Member for Epping, who went behind the backs of Parliament and carried on a war which cost us £100,000,000, and for which we are paying to-day £5,000,000 a year in interest.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I need scarcely say that there is not a word of truth in that statement.

Mr. HAYCOCK: A minute ago the right hon. Gentleman was very angry because he said that I had suggested that there was a little bit of lying going on. Now he suggests that I am lying.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am making no charge of mendacity against the hon. Member, but only one of hopeless, lamentable and invincible ignorance.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. HAYCOCK: I do not know whether there is such a thing as hopeful ignorance, but if so there is a chance for the right hon. Member. I am accused of ignorance. I say that a war was carried on against Russia, an unofficial war, a war behind the backs of Parliament, that the troops were sent there, that they were sent up the country and that that war cost us £100,000,000. We assisted Denikin, Koltchack and others. When Denikin went through the Ukraine we were told by the Rabbi that 500,000 Jews were slaughtered; slaughtered because of our money. There was no protest then from hon. Members opposite. When atrocities took place that would sicken one's imagination, we did not hear that there was any protest from hon. Members opposite. We did undoubtedly interfere
in Russia. We did subsidise those generals. It is common knowledge that we subsidised those generals. The one thing that I am surprised at is that the right hon. Member for Epping did not have to stand his trial in a criminal court because of that illegal war. He spent that money. Then there was the blockade, one of the most inhuman things in history, when we put a cordon round Russia and refused to allow anything to go over the boundaries, any medicines, or disinfectants—quite contrary to the Geneva Convention. It was one of the most damnable, diabolical, caddish, inexcusable—[Interruption.]—things to do. I tell you what it is, I know nothing more callous. When that blockade was carried out Russian mothers watched their kiddies die before their eyes. They could get no medicines, and in the hospitals operations were carried out without any anaesthetics. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but Russia has not forgotten. We have to ask forgiveness from Russia. I know hon. Members opposite do not like Russia. Why is there this enmity towards Russia? It is because there is a new social order in that country. They have done two atrocious things. First of all, they published the secret treaties. Hon. Members opposite do not like that because they prove that the last War was fought for a lie. If it had gone according to the plan in the secret treaties, what a different world there would have been in Constantinople, in Persia and in Germany—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really try to confine himself to the question before the Committee. The contents of secret treaties have nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. HAYCOCK: That was a tragic occurrence. Russia committed the indiscretion of telling the world what the last war was fought for, and if there is any person who will apologise for the secret Treaties, then, believe me, they have some courage. The next thing they did was to take away the land from the landlords. That was the sin against the Holy Ghost. That is why hon. Members opposite dislike Russia. [Interruption.] Russia is there, and is going to stay there. There have been prophecies again and again to the effect that the Russian Soviet
system will crumble and fall, and I have no doubt many hon. Members opposite would be glad to see a Tsar back again. But the Government of Russia is lasting and it is becoming more and more clear—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have tried to make it perfectly clear to the hon. Member that we are not discussing the merits or demerits of the Soviet Government. We are discussing now whether the Soviet Government has taken certain action and broken certain agreements which justify a censure upon the Government for not terminating diplomatic relations. That is the only question before the Committee at the moment.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Then I will tear up these notes. I want propaganda to cease. I do not want any interference from Moscow, or for this country to interfere with Moscow. I want co-operation, friendly and peaceful co-operation, between this country and Russia. We need Russia, and Russia needs us. We do not require the kind of propaganda which may emanate from Moscow, nor do we require the propaganda which emanates from the benches opposite or from Fleet Street. We need Russia. We are living in a very difficult world. The position of this country is perhaps more difficult than that of any other. We have to sell our goods if we are to live, and the other fellow because of his economic nationalism is putting up his tariff barriers. We know how much progress economic nationalism has made in the last 20 years. It threatens our life. We require to be able to sell our goods. There are 150,000,000 of people controlling one-sixth of the earth's area who are able to send us the things we want, wheat and flax, and petrol and timber, the raw material, and we want to send them our manufactured articles.
I want the right feeling between this country and Russia because I know how much it matters. I happen to have been a commercial traveller and I know that if you are going to do business you must create the atmosphere of good will. We want good will between this country and Russia. If we are going to carry on encouraging liars we shall get another war. There is no necessity for a war between this country and Russia. There should be no room for anything but good will. Russia is perhaps the most wonder-
ful country in the world. Why should we throw away trade? Why be foolish and indulge in all these attitudes of bad will? I hope that common sense will prevail and that we shall co-operate to the mutual benefit of the Russian people and the people of these islands.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The principal interest in the harangue to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Haycock) is the insight it affords us into a peculiar type of mentality found here and there throughout this country, a type of mentality which received a great deal more acclamation from Ministerial supporters before they were rendered tame and respectable, to some extent, by Office. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member into all his wild and woolly words, but there is one question which I must answer, and that in why it is that I have not been tried for the private war I waged in Russia. One of the reasons is that I did nothing that was not approved by the Cabinet of the day, which was headed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or that did not receive the full approval and endorsement of the House of Commons by enormous majorities, or which was not fully in accord with the published decisions of the Inter-Allied Conference, upon which President Wilson, amongst others, was a representative. The dock, if I am to be tried, must therefore be made ample enough to contain quite a large company.
There are two points in the speech of the hon. Member which, I think, call for some notice on the part of the Government. In the first place, there is the allegation that Scotland Yard has been deliberately forging documents. The Home Secretary is not in his place at the moment, but I am not aware that the right hon. Gentleman is ready to admit that he presides over a nest of forgers and that those confident officials and responsible persons who come to him every day, and with whom he has these relations, are in fact guilty of an odious and dishonest transaction of this character. If it is so, then the Government could inform us on the point when the time comes. As a matter of fact, I was not quite clear as to the date on which this alleged crime is said to have
been committed; but it appears that it was committed at any time during the last five or six years. In that case the Prime Minister and his colleagues would have had cognisance of it, and would have been responsible for working with those who were connected with it. The charge, I need not say, is so absurd that it will not bear investigation, and I need not bother about it.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Has the right hon. Member never heard of the important and unprecedented happening of eight years ago? I am much surprised.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never heard of such a thing, and I am not at all acquainted with it. The other point to which I invite the attention of the Prime Minister is the statement which the hon. Member made about the Secretary of the Soviet Embassy having visited the House of Commons and addressed a party meeting of the supporters of the Government. If that is so, I think it is altogether a novel departure in the relationships and actions which are appropriate to the representative of a foreign State in our midst. Very often those who are connected with foreign embassies visit chambers of commerce or make speeches of a non-controversial character to non-party meetings, but I should have thought it was altogether undesirable that a representative of a foreign nation should visit the House of Commons and harangue supporters of the Government. I had no intention or expectation of taking any part in this Debate, and it is only the extraordinary speech, to which we listened with increasing amazement, from the Prime Minister that has forced me to do so. The Prime Minister began by instituting a comparison between the speeches which I and others have made about India, and the Communist propaganda to create a revolution in India.

The PRIME MINISTERindicated dissent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I heard the right hon. Gentleman. I do not say that he tried to make this comparison apply in all respects, but he used this in order to lead up to a conclusion in which he pointed at me and said, "If mischief is caused by Communists, it is also caused by your speeches." I think we
may examine the basis of such a serious charge. I suggest that in all questions of speech or action the character of the speech or action must be considered. Before you can judge its consequence, if its character is lawful and proper, then it may well be that some anger is caused to other persons by it, but if the speech in itself and the doctrines in themselves are lawful and consonant with public order, there is no ground why silence should be maintained on public matters. Therefore, there is no comparison to be drawn between such doctrines and speeches and deliberate attempts to throw the whole country into a state of revolutionary disorder. There is this difference, I may point out, between the kind of speech which I make to one set of people and the kind of Communist propaganda handed out to another. But the people who are angered by the speeches which I make are the enemies of this country, and those who are angered by the Communist propaganda are its friends. [Interruption.]

Mr. TOWNEND: On a point of Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman say—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. TOWNEND: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to imply that the operatives of Lancashire, who were angered by his Indian speech, are enemies of the country?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Chair can take no responsibility for the opinions of right hon. or hon. Members.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot understand all this touchiness, Rather more than normal interest is being taken in the topic that we are discussing this afternoon. I cannot understand why we cannot be allowed to debate this matter without individual Members jumping up here and there and taking points of Order which they well know are an abuse of the rule which entitles a Member to interrupt a speech. But let me say, since the Prime Minister has referred to me so pointedly, and I think wrongfully, that I am not at all prepared to accept from him guidance in public matters as to what is right and patriotic. [Interruption.] I am sorry to have to say that, because I have a respect and admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, and,
naturally, a respect for the great office which he holds; but of this I am sure, that he has never allowed himself to be hampered in what he thought was his public duty by the kind of taunts which he was good enough to fling at me across the Floor, and at any rate that is a matter to which I think I was entitled to refer. But I will not labour that particular point.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Who is touchy now?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman, who is a very perfervid partisan, and very properly, of his leaders, must recognise that in all these questions it may be asked, who began it? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman made an unjustifiable and unjust comparison for the purposes of a small debating point, and I have answered him as he deserves. But I sympathise very much with the right hon. Gentleman none the less, because his position to-day is one of great embarrassment, and he has, with his usual deftness and skill, attempted to conceal the awkward feelings and reflections which are filling his mind. No one has laid down the law about the behaviour of the Socialist Government more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I have here a copy of a letter, his own dispatch, in connection with the man Zinovieff:
No one, who understands the constitution and the relationships of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Government. No Government will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan revolutions for its overthrow.
That is the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, and it has been supported in much more recent times, as late as 1929, when the right hon. Gentleman said:
Our conditions are laid down in a public dispatch. Everyone who has read the dispatch knows what they are. My colleagues know; my opponents know; and the representatives of Soviet Government know. We stand by them. Of course we do.
I have quotations from the Foreign Secretary, but I need not trouble the Committee with them, because they are
beyond dispute. These are the declarations which the Government have made, which they have repeated and renewed, and which constitute the settled basis of their policy. The whole of these declarations are being flouted and mocked every day that passes. No one has talked more bold and brave than the Prime Minister, except the Foreign Secretary, on this subject of what he would stand and what he would not, what he would tolerate and what he would not. Why, he would tolerate anything! I have yet to see the dose or pill that he would not swallow if it came from Russia. The right hon. Gentleman is treated with open defiance and ridicule. I see that a gentleman named Menjinksy, Chief of the Ogpu, has said—I must say that the Russians are exceedingly frank—
As long as there are idiots to take our signature seriously, and to put their trust in it, we must promise everything that is being asked, and as much as one likes, if we can only get something tangible in exchange.
Let me read to the Prime Minister what is published in the official Press of Russia about India, in view of his attempt to make comparisons with speeches made by people who are endeavouring to advocate a steadier policy. This is what is said by the International Press Correspondence, the organ of the Communist International, and it is dated 26th February, 1931:
We need in India to build class proletarian trade unions at a feverish pace, intensely, every day and under all circumstances…The preparations for a general political strike must be brought to the front. … We must rouse the masses…We must inspire them with the spirit of war to the bitter end, and the spirit of struggle for India in which there will be no place for British Imperialism.
These things are published under the full authority of the Government of the day in a country where, as we have been reminded by the Prime Minister, no newspaper opinion is allowed to be expressed which is not in accord with the opinions of the Government of the day. And then you have to read these incitements, this deliberate avowal of attempts to cause revolution in India, side by side with the declarations which the Prime Minister made and which he told us he stands by. It is a case of contradiction of the most flagrant kind. I am Aston-
ished that the Prime Minister has attempted even to cover up this change of front of his with a certain veneer of smooth words. He stands more stultified by it than any man I have seen, on this Russian question. Here he is sitting, having deliberately devoured with apparent gusto every word on this subject which he has ever spoken.
Then the right hon. Gentleman, trying to make a cheap point across the Floor of the House, quoted Some of the speeches of my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary. Our policy was to pursue with great patience the relationships which we found to exist when we came into office in 1924. Some of us would have liked to have seen them terminated sooner. Certainly there was no lack of provocation, as was so very well stated by my right hon. Friend, but it was thought that with the Government of Russia relations had been resumed, and that as long as we could endure the arrangement we must go on patiently year after year until they became intolerable. The arguments which were appropriate to that condition of affaire are in no way stultified now, because the moment when patience became exhausted the Soviet representatives were requested to withdraw from this country and the agreement between the two countries lapsed.
Why, then, did the right hon Gentleman attempt to charge my right hon. Friend with inconsistency? We gave a patient trial to a policy of which we did not approve and which we were not anxious to reverse, but in the end found the situation intolerable and we turned them out. The present Prime Minister has brought them back. He and his friends ran about the country telling the electors at the last election, that when the Russians were brought back trade would be so great that unemployment would be cured, and having deluded large numbers of working men with the idea that their misfortunes would be healed if only we brought back the Russian representatives, the right hon. Gentleman obtained a majority. And the people have seen the consequences which have followed from it. Our policy in this matter has been reversed. We turned the Soviet representatives out and the present Government have brought them back.
I say to the Government, for the consequences in every sphere you are responsible. You cannot go harking back upon the previous period. You are responsible for the great spread of their propaganda in India. You are responsible for their increasing hostility to this country. You are responsible for the lamentable failure of the trade between the two countries; and you are responsible for securing them special favour of funds which are indirectly used for buying armaments that may be used in the event of war.

Mr. HAYCOCK: On a point of Order. Once or twice, Mr. Dunnico, you have pulled me up on the ground that I was out of order, and I wish to know if the right hon. Gentleman is in order in that observation.

Mr. CHURCHILLrose—

Mr. TOWNEND: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to resume his place at the Box before you, Mr. Dunnico, have had an opportunity of replying to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock)?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been following the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and its bearing upon the point which is before the Committee, and as long as he keeps within a reasonable distance of that point I do not propose to intervene, but I think that he is now getting rather too far away from the issue before the Committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said all that I have to say. When one looks back on the long past history of our relations with Russia, since the Great War and its subsidiary conflicts were brought to a close, one sees at a glance how very much more successful the United States have been in their relations with Russia than we have been in our relations with Russia. The United States have done far more trade and a more profitable trade. They have sold a much larger quantity of goods, and have a much more favourable record in that respect, but the United States have never done what we have done, and what we are continuing to do, namely to falisfy the foundations of our own system of society by giving greater favours to a Communist, revolutionary Government than we give to
other friendly countries or even to our own Dominions. That is the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is enforcing to-day and his responsibility is there. I agree with him that there is no great danger of Communist propaganda in this country. There may be danger to the Communists but there is no danger to the country. This country is safe and sure and strong in itself. It is healthy and I believe will easily throw off the attempts which are being made to undermine it. But, if the country is safe and secure, that is no reason why it should be made ridiculous by the antics of this Government or the disgraceful tergiversation of the Prime Minister.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) commenced his speech by referring to my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock) as being representative of a type of mentality which is not fully appreciated by the leaders of the Labour party now that they have acquired the responsibilities of office. There is one thing which we cannot say about the right hon. Gentleman. We cannot say that the fact of being in office changes his mentality, because he is just as irresponsible when he is dealing with the gravest international affairs, as he is when he is in Opposition, and I know of no more sinister figure in this controversy regarding Russia than the right hon. Gentleman. When he was occupying a responsible position in the last Government he went out of his way on a number of occasions to deliver speeches which were calculated to undermine the confidence of those manufacturers engaged in Anglo-Russian trade. He used language regarding the leaders of the Russian people which would have disgraced anybody delivering a speech at the street corner. He referred to them as "thieves" and "guttersnipes" and "the sweepings of the capitals of Europe." I wonder how he expects, in view of that attitude on the part of a responsible statesman in this country, that relations are going to develop between the two countries in a way which will be to their mutual advantage.
One would imagine, when listening to the late Foreign Secretary as he introduced this subject this afternoon, that it was impossible for any member of the Conservative party, to whatever eminence
he may have attained, to see that there are two sides to this question like any other question. The right hon. Gentleman ignored one or two essential facts in relation to this matter of propaganda. First of all he forgot to remind the Committee, when giving us the background of the problem, that in the preamble to the trade agreement of 1921, it was clearly stated that it was a temporary agreement, preliminary to a general treaty between the two nations in which all outstanding questions would be cleared up, and that this temporary agreement was to be regarded as an arrangement, for the purpose of restarting trade, until such time as the two countries could move forward towards a fuller understanding. It was not the fault of Russia that no steps were taken to implement the principles laid down in the preamble to the trade agreement. Time after time during the period of the last Conservative administration, and even prior to then, Russia, through her responsible leaders, made it perfectly clear that she was willing to enter into negotiations for a general treaty. Hon. Members opposite must not forget that the two last Conservative administrations practised a systematic boycott of Anglo-Russian trade, and refused to give to manufacturers engaged in that business the conditions which were essential to its full and proper development. By administrative action in connection with the machinery of export credits and trade facilities they deliberately excluded the one country in the world where there was a real necessity for such machinery and where it could be used with advantage. They deliberately excluded Russia from the benefits of those measures and betrayed a consistent hostility towards any suggestion that we might get a full settlement with Russia.
If there are faults, they are not all on one side, and, if we are going to promote co-operation instead of strife in the world, we must be able to understand the other fellow's point of view. I think, therefore, that it would be a great mistake if this Debate were to finish with-out somebody attempting to make it clear that, as far as the masses of the English people are concerned, what we desire from Russia is that she should stick to her task of building up as high a civilisa-
tion as possible for her own people, by whatever methods seem fit to the Russian people themselves, but that she must leave us equally free to work out our own problems in our own way. As far as the plain man is concerned, the vast majority of the English people—apart from those engaged in political controversy—they only desire the opportunity to conduct their trade, and to live in amity and co-operation with Russia. But every responsible member of the State will stand behind the British Government in resenting and dealing effectively with any attempt by Russia or any other country to interfere with our internal problems. Unquestionably, a certain amount of propaganda has been carried on by Russia, but it would be idle to ignore the fact that the Conservative party, in particular, have never honoured the bargain with Russia in the spirit or the letter of the agreement because the agreement lays obligations upon both parties. Article 16 of the 1924 Treaty—which was embodied in the settlement with Russia following the last General Election—states:
The contracting parties solemnly affirm their desire and intention to live in peace and amity with each other and scrupulously to respect the undoubted right of a State to order its own life within it" own jurisdiction in its own way, to refrain and to restrain all persons and organisations under their direct or indirect control including organisations in receipt of any financial assistance from them from any Act, overt or otherwise, liable in any way whatever to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity of any part of the territory of the British Empire, or the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, or intended to embitter the relations of the British Empire or the Union with their neighbours or any other countries.
Yet we have constantly had propaganda "stunts" from time to time, from Members of the Conservative party, responsible and otherwise. To-day we have been called upon to waste a good many hours of Parliamentary time, listening to a statement of the late Foreign Secretary, in which no single charge of substance has been made against Russia. Not one single specific charge relating to a specific breach of the agreement has been made. We were told by the late Foreign Secretary that the Russian Government were now busy trying to bring about a revolution by dumping. I do not know of any single commodity of primary importance in which the Russian
supply on the world market is the determining factor in fixing the world price. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to impress the Committee he might have used an argument which appealed more to our intelligence. Russia has to pay for whatever imports of machinery and other things go into Russia. She has to pay for those imports with the sums received from the sale of her exports abroad. I have no doubt whatever that that if the Russians could get a higher price for their wheat, their oil and their timber, they would be delighted to have to part with less of those commodities in order to be able to pay the bill for the oil engines and excavators which they are buying in my constituency. They would be delighted, I am sure, if they were getting a higher price and had not to part with so large a volume of raw materials and foodstuffs in order to settle their debts. To use such an argument as the right hon. Gentleman used, in order to show that we ought to alter the existing situation, was not to appeal to our intelligence.
I fear I should be out of order in following the right hon. Gentleman at any length in that part of has speech which was devoted to a criticism of the credits now being granted in connection with British exports to Russia. Instead of being a criticism which could legitimately be levelled at the Foreign Office, that criticism was one which ought to have been directed mainly against members of his own party and men of great experience in matters of world trade. These credits are granted by a statutory committee, which is independent of the control of Parliament, and is supposed to deal with each application on its commercial merits. Out of 13 or 14 members of that committee, 10 or 11, at any rate, are connected with banking and commercial interests and, as far as their political tendencies are concerned, most of those are identified with the party opposite. Therefore, it seems to me that we have wasted our time except to indicate that, however dangerous this kind of game may be for the future peace of the world, however dangerous it may be in the sense that it encourages those elements in Russia who believe that this issue must be fought out by force, for purposes of Party expediency Conservative propaganda must be carried on.
Those extremists who believe in armaments as the only security for Russia are strengthened every time the Conservative party force a Debate like this, they feed extremists in Russia with the feeling that with the Conservative party there is absolutely no possibility of getting down to an era of good will and co-operation.
Another very serious kind of damage that is done by these Debates is the unsettling effect that they have on those who would endeavour, under difficult conditions, to develop economic enterprise with Russia. If one is engaged upon a. business that requires in some cases 18 months or two years before final payments are made in connection with the export of equipment, machinery, and so on. it is evident that so long as you have this outlook dominating one great party in the State, it prevents the full development of trade that would otherwise take place, and it prevents the Russian trading agencies from making arrangements with this country of a stable character in order to build up the kind of trading organisations that have to be developed in relationships between a State built on the Russian model and a State such as our own, because the Russians naturally fear, every time this sort of thing occurs, that with a change of Government another Arcos raid may take place, and that the whole of the organisation that has been built up will be destroyed.
An argument was used by the right hon. Member for Epping that because America had been able to do an expanding trade with Russia without entering into diplomatic relationships, therefore, I presume, if Great Britain had not had any such relationships, we too should have been able to do a larger volume of trade than we have done, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman gives us credit for a little more intelligence than to assume that he was really serious when he was advancing such arguments. He knows that the United States of America is neither a European nor an Asiatic Power. She has not the contact of interest owing to her geographical position, and owing to the other factors explaining the difference between the United States and the British Empire, it is quite obvious that, while one country might be perfectly safe in refusing to enter into diplomatic relationships, another great Empire, with a contact along thousands
of miles of frontier and with great interests in the East where Russia stands between Europe and the East, would run far graver dangers than we now do when we have some kind of machinery with which to deal with difficulties as they arise.
There are a number of reasons why this very much extended business has been done by America as compared with Great Britain. The first and most important is that America has escaped the blessing of having front rank statesmen like the right hon. Member for Epping, and has had no great figure constantly conspiring to disturb relations between the two countries. Secondly, the political background is very different, because America went to the aid of Russia during the period of famine and has not our record of intervention there. Thirdly, the products which have been bought by Russia and imported in such large quantities from America are in the main products for which there is no competitive source of supply in Great Britain.
For instance, Great Britain has not yet evolved a tractor fully competitive with the organisation that the American tractor people have been able to establish. It is true that we have made some progress, and from the point of view of quality and price, I believe we have arrived at a stage when, if we can get a market of sufficient volume, we can do that as well as anybody else. But, as a matter of fact. we do not grow cotton in Great Britain, and a good deal of Russia's purchases from America have consisted of cotton and tractors. Fourthly, the American manufacturers of machinery have been willing in the past to concede far better credit terms and to encourage the Russians to engage in large-scale importation upon terms which came within their possibilities.
Therefore, I hope and trust that the Members of the Conservative party will come to realise that you cannot treat a nation of 150,000,000 people in the way that a great many of them treat Russia and Russian problems every time they are mentioned either in this House or outside. We have to realise that this great new experiment in the world is there. We have to see to it that the hot-heads in Russia, who believe perhaps that they can promote world revolution
by a little propaganda of the right kind, learn that we as a people are determined to work out our salvation in our own way. We are quite willing to concede the same right to them, and anything that we can do to help their people to raise their standard of life and to improve their demand for the luxuries and amenities of civilised life, we shall do on terms that are fair to both sides.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), in speaking this evening, pointed across the House to me and referred to me as an enemy of Republicanism. I should like to say, in reply, that far from being an enemy in any way, I have done what I think the hon. Member has not done—I actually served a Republic during the War. I served the Republic of Russia during the War, and I wanted that Republic to grow to freedom. I was also in Russia when a paid agent of the Germans, named Lenin, was sent in a sealed carriage with a couple of million pounds to defraud that Republic of her liberty and to set up the present tyranny which has lasted ever since. If you compare the conditions in India to-day with those in Russia, there can be no question which country is the freer. The Socialist party in Russia is in prison. Kerensky, who may be called the Ramsay MacDonald of Russia, in that he is the head of the Socialist party there, is actually driven out of the country. He is not able to return to that glorious country of freedom. Therefore, there can be no possible comparison between conditions in Russia to-day and those which we permit in India, where there is freedom of speech, where even convicts are released and end by negotiating with the Viceroy of the day.
Now I would for a moment refer to the speech of the Prime Minister. I have heard a good many rambling and irrelevant utterances in my day from hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but of all the motley medleys of oratory, his speech, to use the common parlance, took the biscuit. The only point he made was the incredible patience of the late Foreign Secretary in relation to Russia, which we must all admit. If we look into our hearts, we must admit that the late Unionist Government tolerated propaganda which even this Government might not have tolerated had it been in
office, and it only cut the painter under extreme provocation. My view has always been this, not that we should not recognise Soviet Russia. I have never said that. I say, "Never recognise her except upon our terms," and those terms ought to be, first of all, a loyal mutual undertaking not to propagand in either country; and, secondly, I would never dream of selling the priceless boon of British recognition for nothing. I would have said to the Soviet, "Pay some of your debts first. Recognise that you do owe us something, even if you do not pay, and then perhaps we will permit you to come over"—

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: They did pay.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: They have not paid one single farthing.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that in the Trade Agreement of 1921 they agreed to the principle of compensation?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: It may be true that 10 years ago they agreed to that. But they have not paid a single farthing since. If in 10 years they cannot pay a farthing, why should we recognise them? Why should we give them in return priceless privileges which we refuse to our own Dominions? Why should we grant to a defaulting Republic what we deny to our most loyal Dominions, which stuck to us in the War? We were told that if we refused recognition of the Soviet, we should have a war, but we have had no war at all. The result of permitting them back here, however, has been that we have never had peace throughout the British Empire since.
There is no one on this side of the House who is against trade with Russia. We signed the Trade Agreement of 1921 and voted for it. We would vote again for agreements that would facilitate and encourage trade with that great country. We are ready to trade with Mormons, about whom the Prime Minister spoke, or with anybody else who is ready to pay. But why should we give unique conditions of entry and permit special facilities to Russian representatives in this country? Their trading agents are more numerous than those of any other country, their diplomatic rights are greater, they have countless secret bags in which they can carry lying leaflets for distribution, if necessary, to our troops, or, rather, the money to pay for it.
7.0 p.m.
Of old, if you had an enemy, he advanced against you with sword, or gun, or rifle. In the late War we advanced one against the other with high explosives and with artillery. But now so-called diplomatic friends can attack you in a way that is just as damaging as going to war. They can send money which can percolate anywhere in the world and poison the wells of conciliation. Propaganda is the poison gas of peace, and Russian roubles are current throughout the British Empire to foment discord and anarchy. We have always held that the British Empire was the main bulwark against Bolshevism, and I hope it will long remain so. Trotsky, when we went to China and did our best to stop sedition there, referred to Russian activities in Shanghai as "a whiff of Moscow." I have never forgotten the words of Lenin respecting India and the East:
India is seething; it is our duty to keep the pot boiling.
I wonder what the Government would do if we took counter-action when it comes to propaganda. There was a General Strike organised not very long ago, under conditions to which we need not refer. Assuming hon. Members on this side were to start to-day a General Strike against the present Government and to secure the support of the Italian. Government, I wonder what the feelings of hon. Members opposite would be. Our views on this side of the House are that it is traditionally and morally wrong for one Government to interfere in the internal affairs of another. This is a sacred obligation which the Soviet has failed to keep.

Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) sent £100,000,000 to Russia, and interfered in Russian affairs.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: The hon. Lady said that £100,000,000 was sent to Russia. May I deal with that challenge in one sentence? Really that is not so. The position was this. Lenin was sent by Germany with £2,000,000 to steal Russia from her common allegiance in the War. The result was that Russia made peace a year and a half before the rest of the Allies. She stabbed us in the back, and hundreds of thousands of Englishmen died as a result of the prolongation of the War. That act of
treachery lost us thousands of lives. But in Russia, all over the country, a few loyalists stood out against that defection, stuck to the common cause, and fought on for England and freedom. Were we wrong in supporting them?

Miss WILKINSON: But you said it was wrong to interfere in other countries affairs.

HON. MEMBERS: It was after the War.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: If they stuck to us throughout the War, would you have us stop supporting them immediately after the War? Certainly not. There was a Government of chaos. If you put it to the House and there was a free vote, there would be an enormous majority for spending that money all over again. I have been led aside by the hon. Lady, but, if she had come in a little earlier, she would have realised that this has already been discussed. My final word is this. Mr. Gandhi is the official Bolsheviser of the brown races, equally an adept at fomenting class as well as colour war. There can be no question to-day that the long arm of Moscow has reached out even to India, that Soviet shekels are busy in the bazaars of Calcutta and that Russian roubles would be found in the pockets of Mr. Gandhi, if he wore breeches like the rest of us.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): This is not a new subject for Debate in this House. We have had, in fact, four Debates on this subject of Russian propaganda since the resumption of relations with the Soviet Government. There is a Debate on this subject every few months, and questions on this subject every few days. Seldom does a week pass but that hon. Members opposite, with the assistance of the correspondent of a notable newspaper stationed at Riga, put questions on the Order Paper relating to various true or alleged statements, which are held to constitute hostile propaganda. This subject is not new, and this afternoon all the resources of originality have evidently been exhausted. Nothing very fresh has been said from the other side of the Committee, nor has it needed anything very
fresh to be said on this side to defend the Government's position, nor can I hold out any hope of saying anything very fresh in the short time in which I shall address the Committee.
The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) travelled over a wide field, as other hon. Members did, so as to incur the occasional interventions of the Chair. At one stage the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to suggest that one of the forms of Soviet propaganda, against which we were entitled to guard ourselves, and which might cause a ground for breaking off relations, was the dumping of large quantities of goods into this country at low prices. That is, indeed, a notable extension of the doctrine of Soviet propaganda as hitherto expounded from the benches opposite. Other hon. Members such as the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) have been very consistent throughout all these discussions. They have always opposed the resumption of relations wish the Soviet union; they were continually pressing their own Government when they were on this side of the House to break off relations, with the result that in the end they triumphed and forced their Front bench to break them off.
I have, therefore, no comment to make on the hon. Gentleman's attitude except to pay tribute to his remarkable consistency. But I would remind him that, since the last Parliament, there has been a change in the view of the majority of this House on this subject. This party, and the Liberal party also, fought the last election on—amongst other things—a clear understanding that, if returned, we should reverse the policy of our predecessors and restore diplomatic relations. That was made abundantly clear, and the millions of voters, who voted for my hon. Friends, and the somewhat smaller hut still substantial number of millions who voted for the Liberal candidates, voted with a clear knowledge that this would be done. In due course it was done and approved by a substantial majority of this House. Nor, if a straight vote could be taken now, is there any reason to suppose that this House would vote differently? [Interruption.] I would like to develop for a moment or two this point of view. We have had brought up this afternoon very familiar
quotations from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We know many of these now by heart, because hon. Members opposite are continually introducing them into these Debates. It has been repeatedly stated by the Prime Minister, both this afternoon and on previous occasions, that to these statements we adhere.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is all you do!

Mr. DALTON: But, between laying down a general proposition and deciding how to apply it in a practical and common sense fashion, there may be on occasions a wide difference. During the three years that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was Foreign Secretary and exercising his most exemplary patience—as he has described it—in the face of the most intolerable provocations—as he has described them—which he received during all this period, it might have been argued that Communism was a force which must be reckoned with in thi6 country. During all the period since then, the decline of the Communist party in this country has been notable. There was a time when Communist candidates habitually forfeited their deposits at elections; we are now reaching an era when Communist candidates merely protest against having to make a deposit, and do not deposit it. In the last Parliament we had the spectacle of a single Communist Member in this House, but at the General Election he was defeated by a supporter of His Majesty's Government, who is now one of its Members. If we are to seek now for the solitary eccentrics of the House of Commons, we have to look for them in the United Empire party or in the so-called "New Party," two of whose members to our great surprise entered the House for a few moments this afternoon, but soon disappeared. One could multiply examples of the complete failure and decline of the Communist party in this country. This is not irrelevant to this discussion because there is an ancient legal tag De minimus non curat lex, which being translated means, "Do not trouble about trifles." Very evidently there is much less ground now for taking seriously these lucubrations either in the Moscow Press or in the "Daily Worker," which seems to be widely read by Conservative Members
and to have its chief circulation in Conservative circles. There is less need to take heed of these attacks to-day because Communism in this country has now gone into a galloping consumption.
Nor, if we turn our eyes to other parts of the Empire, is there any ground for supposing that Communism is other than a negligible force. The last speech to which we have listened indicated the extremes of fantasy to which it is necessary to proceed in order to argue that Communism is a force in our Empire to-day. The hon. and gallant Member argued that Mr. Gandhi was a tool of Moscow. I am surprised that one who is such a remarkably close student of the outpourings of the Profintern and those other grotesque bodies—particularly as portrayed through Riga spectacles—has not become acquainted with the gross abuse heaped on the head of Mr. Gandhi by some of these Communist pundits. He shares, in equal part with the representatives of the British Government in India, the hatred and scorn of the obscure Communist clique which still pours out these manifestos. Consequently, it appears to me that we waste our energies and the time of this Committee in any argument which is designed to show that Communism seriously matters in the form of propaganda here or in other parts of the Empire. In those European countries bordering on Russia it may, perhaps, be different, but I do not desire to speak of them to-day.
The plain desire of this Parliament was in favour of a restoration of diplomatic relations with Russia. They have been restored, but since that time, it is perfectly right to admit, we have suffered certain disappointments. We had hoped that the restoration of diplomatic relations would have led to a greater increase in trade than has, in fact, taken place. None the less, in order that these things may be viewed in true perspective, let me quote a figure or two for the information of the Committee in addition to those given by the Prime Minister this afternoon. In 1928, when the full results of the breaking off of relations were making themselves felt, our exports to the Soviet Union fell to the record low figure of less than £2,750,000 of British produce sold to Russia. In 1930, on the
other hand, the figures had risen to more than £6,750,000. In other words, they had more than doubled.
In order to understand the significance of this, it is important to remember that during this period prices had fallen, and consequently the increase in trade was larger than would be supposed by merely looking at the plain figures expressed in sterling. This is an increase which is traceable, in large measure, to the steps taken by the present Government to resume relations and judiciously to extend export credits to British producers engaged in Russian trade. [Interruption.] I am not talking about imports at all, because, as I understand it, imports are regarded by hon. Members opposite as an unqualified disaster. I am dealing only with the question of exports of British produce, employing British labour. There the fact is very noticeable that we have more than doubled this trade, without allowing for the decline in prices. None the less, we shall be gravely disappointed unless in the near future we get a considerable increase of orders from Soviet Russia. The vast orders that have been promised from the Soviet Union still remain in large measure to seek. They would remain even further away if hon. Gentlemen opposite had had their way. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have so far misunderstood the position as to talk of export credits being used to furnish munitions of war, but I do not think that that is really intended.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I intended it.

Mr. DALTON: No export of munitions of war has been covered by the export credits scheme. As a historian of the Great War, the right hon. Gentleman knows that indirectly almost everything is munitions of war—food and almost everything else—but it is not of that that I am speaking. I say that no munitions of war in the strict sense of the term have been exported, under the export credits scheme, to the Soviet Union.
To take the attitude that has been taken by the Prime Minister this afternoon and by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on previous occasions, and the attitude that I am taking now, namely, that we do not intend to make
ourselves ridiculous by continually addressing pompous and futile protests to the Soviet Ambassador here, or through our Ambassador to the Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs, whenever the "Pravda," publishes some offensive or imbecile article—that is the true measure of realism and common sense. Those who desire to bring about a state of affairs in which a breaking off of diplomatic relations would become inevitable, desire that every few weeks some such pompous protest should be made, but we do not intend to play into their hands by any such procedure. We intend, on the other hand, to continue to do our best to persuade even the incredulous Soviet world to believe that we desire with them, as with other nations, friendly relations and co-operation, both political and economic. It may be difficult to persuade them. There are certain fixed doctrines held in Communist circles which are in flat contradiction with truth as most of us see it. For example, it is held that a war is inevitable in which all the Powers of Western Europe will unite in launching an offensive against the Soviet Union, and it is stated, if not believed, by some Soviet spokesmen, that this country, even under this Government, is engaged in planning with its neighbours an offensive of that kind.
Such a belief is grotesque and ridiculous, and would be unbelievable to any mind which looked at the outer world through clear eyes. But I must add this. The kind of speeches that are made from the benches opposite, and the kind of articles which are published in certain organs of the Press which give general support to the party opposite, encourage the simpletons in the Soviet world to believe this ridiculous story. For that reason, I hope that, in the interests of appeasement and the education of the Soviet mind in these matters, we may perhaps, after today's Debate, have a cessation for awhile of these discussions. We are, I repeat, disappointed at the small progress which has been made and disappointed that we have not succeeded in obtaining closer and more effective touch with the representatives of the Soviet Union; but, although disappointed, we are not prepared to give up working for a better understanding and for an elucidation in their minds of our intentions and of the
policy for which we stand. In connection with the Disarmament Conference, and in many other ways, opportunities are opening out in the next few months for a fruitful collaboration between them and us.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Are they attending the Disarmament Conference?

Mr. DALTON: Our latest information is that they intend to be there. It will be tremendously important to secure their helpful co-operation in that direction, and if by some mischance a Motion were carried to-day that relations should be broken off, apart from its other effects, such a breaking off of relations now would render quite futile the prospects of that Disarmament Conference. For that and many other reasons, I have no hesitation in asserting that the Government intend to continue the course they have followed in the past, the adoption of a realistic attitude to Anglo-Soviet relations, of a constant watchfulness, but a constant sense of proportion, and seeking to secure from the possibilities that open up before us the maximum advantage in both the political and economic spheres.

Sir A. KNOX: The speeches that we have had from the Front Government Bench on this subject have given no answer to the case which has been put on this side. The origin of this Debate was this. Last week, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) put a definite case of Soviet propaganda, and asked the Prime Minister about it, but got a most unsatisfactory answer. It was therefore decided to raise the question to-day in the House of Commons. We have learned nothing on that subject. I gather that the Prime Minister's defence is that this is a mere report from Riga. Because I anticipated that reply, I have brought with me the original reports on the subject. I have here the draft "Platform of Action of the Communist Party in India" published in Berlin on the 18th December last. It consists of five pages of close script. To say that that was drafted in India is an absolute fallacy. It was drafted in Moscow, and then published in Berlin. It was before the 11th Plenum of the Third International at the beginning of April, and on the 9th May extracts were published in the Communist paper "Pravda," which is the official organ of the Communist party, which rules
Soviet Russia. Then the Riga correspondent telegraphed extracts, every one of which is perfectly accurate, to the "Times."
In order to get a reply on that matter, we asked the Prime Minister questions last week, but we got no reply. We have not received a reply yet. We would like to know definitely what the Prime Minister meant by a declaration about not permitting Communist propaganda by the Third International. He definitely said that in 1924, and the Foreign Secretary said it again in 1929. Have they eaten their words absolutely, or are we to lie down and turn the other cheek to every word of Soviet propaganda? This Government is the most evasive and elusive Government that has ever sat on the Front Bench. Day by day we put questions about Communist propaganda in India, but we never get a straight reply to any question. If the number of supplementary questions increases day by day, it is because we can never get a straight answer to a straight question. It is our duty to our constituents and to the country at large to go on striving and attacking the Government until we get a straight answer from them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) said that it was impossible to understand what the Government are driving at. There are none so blind as those who will not see. It is perfectly obvious that the party opposite are looking on this Russian question, as they have for years, simply as a political weapon to use against this party. On economic questions they have no policy on which they can agree, and on fiscal policy they are in complete disagreement, and they have to unite their shattered ranks by raising this bogy of a hollow turnip. It is pathetic is see a once great party reduced to these straits. The party opposite have two obsessions—one is Mr. Gandhi and the other is Mr. Stalin. At Question Time every Monday, we divide the time between the awful bogey of what Mr. Gandhi may do to the British Empire, and the terrible threats of Mr. Stalin and his cohorts in Russia. On Wednesdays, we begin with Mr. Stalin and end with Mr. Gandhi.
I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are not raising the prestige of this
country—I do not say the prestige of their party; that is their affair—in the eyes of the world and of our own Dominions, by continually making out that we are threatened by some terrible power from Russia, and that Russia is at the bottom of all our troubles. To hear some hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would think that the troubles in Spain were due to Moscow, and the troubles in India, China, Peru, Mexico and everywhere else were due to Communist propaganda. I dare say some hon. Gentlemen believe it, and that is the pathetic part of it. Hearing of what is said about them, the Third International and the Bureau of the Commintern in Moscow say, "Look at the wonderful

things we are doing; look how we are frightening the bourgeoisie of the once proud aristocracy; look how the British Empire is trembling." And then they get their estimates through and are able to extract more money from a hard driven treasury. I was in Russia a few years ago since the Revolution—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £118,843, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 223;. Noes, 243.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[7.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Albery, Irving James
Colville, Major D. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Astor, Viscountess
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Atkinson, C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, Capt, A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.


Balfour, Captain H. H, (I. of Thanet)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Balniel, Lord
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Inksip, Sir Thomas


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Iveagh, Countess of


Beaumont, M. W.
Cavies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Sir G. w. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boyce, Leslie
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Bracken, B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s, M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Briscoe, Richard George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ferguson, Sir John
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Buchan, John
Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Ford, Sir P. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Butler, R. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ganzoni. Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Campbell, E. T.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, w. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grace, John
Muirhead, A. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson, Col Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Neill, Sir H.


Christie, J. A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gunston, Captain O. W.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Penny, Sir George


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Simms, Major-General J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Purbrick, R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsbotham, H.
Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Remer, John R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chts'y)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ross, Ronald D.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Withers, Sir John James


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Salmon, Major L.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)



Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Thomson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell and Major Sir George Hennessy.


Savery, S. S.
Thompson, Luke



Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Longden, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lunn, William


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Inse)


Allen, w. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Alpass, J. H.
Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Ammon, Charles George
Gould, F.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Arnott, John
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McElwee, A.


Aske, Sir Robert
Granville, E.
McEntee, V. L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Ayles, Walter
Groves, Thomas E.
McKinlay, A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mac Laren, Andrew


Barr, James
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon Wedgwood
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McShane, John James


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Harris, Percy A.
Malone, C. L'Estrangs (N'thampton)


Benson, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Haycock, A. W.
Mansfield, W.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hayday, Arthur
March, S.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, s.)
Marcus, M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Markham, S. F.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Herriotts. J.
Marley, J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hicks, Ernest George
Marshall, Fred


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mathers, George


Bromley, J,
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Matters, L. W.


Brooke, W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Maxton, James


Brothers, M.
Hollins, A.
Messer, Fred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hopkin, Daniel
Middleton, G.


Burgess, F. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mills, J. E.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Millner, Major J.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague, Frederick


Cameron, A. G.
Isaacs, George
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morley, Ralph


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Chater, Daniel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mort, D. L.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Murnin, Hugh


Cove, William G.
Kelly, W. T.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cowan, D. M.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Oldfield, J. R.


Daggar, George
Kinley, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Dallas, George
Knight, Holford
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Dalton, Hugh
Lang, Gordon
Palln, John Henry


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Paling, Wilfrid


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Palmer, E. T.


Day, Harry
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Perry, S. F.


Duncan, Charles
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pole, Major D. G.


Elmley, Viscount
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Potts, John S.


Foot, Isaac
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Price, M. P.


Freeman, Peter
Lindley, Fred W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rathbone, Eleanor


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Raynes, W. R.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Longbottom, A. W.
Richards, R.




Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sinkinson, George
Viant, S. P.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Walkden, A. G.


Ritson, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wallace, H. W.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwish)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Watkins, F. C.


Romeril, H. G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wellock, Wilfred


Rowson, Guy
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sorensen, R.
West, F. R.


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Stamford, Thomas W.
White, H. G.


Sanders, W. S.
Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sandham, E.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sawyer, G. F.
Strauss, G. R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Scrymgeour. E.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Scurr, John
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sherwood, G. H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Wise, E. F.


Shillaker, J. F.
Tillett, Ben
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.



Simmons, C. J.
Turner, B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Vaughan, David
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Third Reading read
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I am asking the House to decide that this Bill ought to receive further consideration before it becomes an Act. It is a Measure to provide for the discharge of the sewage from a large portion of the county of Middlesex into the river Thames. After all, the Thames is a piece of national property, it is not the property of the Middlesex County Council for them to pollute. In this vast Bill of some 80 Clauses and three Schedules the Middlesex County Council are seeking the most complete powers to pollute that piece of national property. An Irishman might call that part of the river into which they propose to discharge their sewage the playground of 12,000,000 people, that is taking into account Greater London and the surrounding country. In my opinion we have had
enough of pollution. We pollute the air in this country and we pollute the water, and practically nothing is done about it, and it is time the House of Commons put a check upon the exuberance of local authorities, who are desirous of getting unlimited powers of carrying out the kind of pollution of which I have been speaking.
It is time that the House of Commons discussed putting a check upon the exuberance of these local authorities, who are desirous of getting unlimited powers to carry out work of this kind. The Middlesex County Council proposed to discharge the storm water of something like 100,000 acres in the course of a very few hours into the river. Even worse than that, they are asking for powers to combine the discharge of the sewage of about 2,000,000 people at one spot at the reaches of this particular river. They are proposing to combine the treatment of the sewage of 25 or 26 sewage farms into one vast sewage farm, and there are not nearly enough precautions taken to prevent pollution taking place. If a pollution of the river does take place the maximum penalty is £100, and a daily fine of £50, and a fine of that description is not one which is likely to prevent the Council polluting the river. Those penalties might cost the Council about £18,000 a year, but it would cost them infinitely more to treat the sewage in another way. Therefore, except from a moral standpoint, it would be to the interests of the Council to put the sewage "plain and unadulterated" directly into the river, and that is one aspect of this question which I do not like.
I may remind the House that the smaller districts mentioned in the Bill have treated their own sewage, and mostly discharge it, after treatment, into the tributaries of the Thames, and they have unquestionably polluted those tributaries. What is now proposed is on a vaster scale, because it is a combination of the sewage of these smaller districts into one vast pollution. Lord Tennyson wrote something on the subject in "The Brook." We all love these brooks, and every Englishman, Scotsman, Irishman, and Welshman enjoys them to the full, but there is no doubt about it that the brooks which Lord Tennyson saw are not those we see round about London, and Lord Tennyson did not reckon with the Middlesex County Council when he wrote:
With here and there a foamy flake
Upon me as I travel,
And here and there a silvery break
Above the golden gravel.
Now these brooks have been polluted and the river is to be still further polluted, and I saw the other day the following verse:
Deprived of life, defiled it ran,
A turbid noisome sewer;
God's glorious gift destroyed by man,
The reckless evil doer.
That is the condition of many of the small tributaries of the Thames at the present time. They no longer flow freely, they are deprived of life, and here we have this vast pollution scheme running out to within three miles of Teddington Lock right into the middle of the river. Within a few hundred yards of the half-tide lock the river remains absolutely stagnant for an hour or two every day, with the result that this sewage is poured into the river, and the stuff out of the pipes floats up and down as the tide turne, and runs out and in as the case may be, the result being that the whole of the river from Teddington Lock to the mouth is to be still further polluted. We see the effluent, dirty and murky, floating past the Embankment of this House, and it is not right for it to pass the Embankment in that condition and it ought to be cleaned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not know whether hon. Members who interrupt me would like to see the river dirtier than it is, but on this question I speak from my heart, and it is not right that we should continue to look upon our rivers in the
way we do now as an outlet of all the filth and garbage which has been improperly treated. We ought to have a bigger outlook, and our aim should be to purify the rivers so that the fish may continue to live and encouraged to come back into the River Thames. For some years I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the subject of river pollution; naturally I pick up information on this question, and what I have stated is borne out by the evidence of witnesses before that committee. The main recommendation of that committee is contained in the second report, which was published some months ago, and the recommendations made in that report have not been carried out by legislation.
It is true that the actual treatment of sewage has made some advance, but not sufficient to justify the pouring of the effluent from the sewage of 2,000,000 people, and the flood water from some hundreds of thousands of acres directly into the Thames. The treatment of the sewage is not adequate to make the river pure. May I remind the House that the treatment of ordinary household sewage is fairly well understood, and it can be made comparatively innocuous, but the treatment of the effluents from factories whatever they may be—woollen or dye factories or sugar beet factories—is by no means helped by the combination of household and trade effluents, which constitute a very serious menace to the purity not only of the Thames but of all the rivers in the country. Many petitions have been put forward against this Bill including petitions from the Port of London Authority and certain trustees in the Isleworth Urban District, and in many other instances objections have been lodged. The Port of London Authority has insisted upon a standard of purity, but it is not sufficient, and we ought to aim at something higher and better than this Bill allows.
In many large areas a discussion has gone forward in regard to a scheme which has only been checked by the cost which affords a better system of dealing with the sewage of great cities like London and other large populous areas. It is a vast scheme for carrying away the effluents, and discharging them into the sea and that can be done. Schemes of that kind have already been put before the Middlesex County Council and the
London County Council, and there is not the slightest reason why, in this time of stress and depression, a great combination, putting up, if necessary, national capital, should not be provided in order to carry out a scheme of that kind. We want a scheme which will deal at the same time with the sewage and secure for us a pure River Thames.
8.0 p.m.
I want to impress upon the House the fact that under this Bill we are embarking on a scheme involving the expenditure of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 which is not going to make the Thames clean and it is really a step in the wrong direction. It will not clean the river, but it will make it dirtier than it is at the present time, and that cannot be right. I think the Middlesex County Council ought to consider the withdrawal of this Bill, and take into consideration some national scheme for carrying the sewage out direct to the sea. Plans of the cost of doing this have been considered, and I know the cost is very high, but we are wasting large sums of money in other directions, and the money would be well spent in a national way if the scheme I suggested were carried out.
There is another aspect which appeals to me and which I would like to touch upon—I refer to the outfall of this great sewage scheme which is to be close to the Teddington Tidal Lock, and it is to come out at Twickenham. The outlet will be right alongside the property of a school for girls, and that cannot be good for any school. I am personally interested in the school in question. For many years I have been on this school committee. I have known of its vicissitudes and troubles. It is called St. Margaret's School for the daughters of naval and marine officers. Naval and marine officers are not blessed with very much of this world's goods, and the result is that this school depends, not on charity, but on the money they Can raise in order to help the officers in question to keep up a school for their daughters. The outlet of the sewage scheme under this Bill is going to come out near a corner of the grounds of this school, an institution which has been in existence for 90 years. I happen to know that the school authorities have not been approached by the Middlesex County Council, and that body has not thought it necessary to do more than draw
the attention of the trustees of the school to this Bill of 80 Clauses. Schools of that kind run by a committee are not well versed in regard to presenting petitions to Parliament and opposing schemes put forward by a great local authority like the Middlesex County Council. The result is that they have to face the prospect of the sewage of some 2,000,000 people being poured into the river literally at their door and flowing up and down to foul the banks of the river, and, as I think everyone in the House will agree, causing that school to close. It cannot remain open, because nobody would send a girl or boy of theirs to a school if they knew that the outfall for the sewage of 2,000,000 people ran within a few yards of its grounds. Although the school has as many as 150 pupils, only 10 pay remunerative fees, the money in the case of the remainder being made up by the generosity of subscribers, and this has been going on for more than 90 years. The school owns three houses and some nice property on the river bank, but the whole of that property will be immensely depreciated by this scheme. I would ask those who are responsible for this Bill to bear that fact in mind, to realise what it means for a school to be faced with such a prospect, and to do what they ought to have done, in my opinion, namely, to approach the school and see that the compensation which is paid to the school is not only adequate but such as to enable the school, if necessary, to be transferred completely to some other and more suitable site, where it will not be troubled with this, to my mind, terrible prospect of sewage pouring out at its very door. Looking at Clause 29 of the Bill, which deals with the subject of compensation, I see no prospect, unless the Middlesex County Council have changed their minds, of this school getting fair treatment. The Clause says:
Any question of disputed compensation payable under this Act or under any enactment incorporated with this Act shall be referred to and determined by arbitration in accordance with the Lands Clauses Acts.
I do not know how that will work out. I only know that no compensation can possibly make up for the discharge of sewage at the front door of this or any other school. I mentioned just now the penalty for pollution. If pollution takes
place, there is a fine of £50 a day. But that is not going to be of any use to this school; the school will lose from A to Z, from beginning to end. I apologise for having detained the House for so long, but the matter is a serious one for this school, and I consider it to be, as far as the pollution of the river is concerned, a serious matter from a national standpoint. Therefore, I would ask those who control the destinies of this Bill to think again, to do the upright and sensible thing as regards compensation for this school, and to make perfectly sure that the pollution of the river is kept in check by every possible means that the law of the land allows.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have been asked to bring this matter before the House by those, many of whom are not in a position financially, even if they had a locus standi, to petition the Committee, who use the reaches of the Thames between Putney and Richmond largely for the purposes of recreation. I am speaking at the moment on behalf of a large number of rowing clubs which afford opportunities for very healthy and pleasurable exercise and very interesting sport for a great many citizens of London. I have heard that some years ago—I am speaking now of a period beyond my own time—when the local authorities of London and Middlesex used to discharge sewage into the Thames, the state of the gravel banks in the neighbourhood of Putney, which necessarily became uncovered at low water, was perfectly hateful, and it was impossible to come ashore when the tide was low because of the appalling state into which shoes and clothes got. Of recent years, the discharge of sewage into the Thames has been under control, and, although I do not say that the water of the reaches of the Thames in the neighbourhood of Putney at the present moment is exactly clean, at least the banks are no longer so dirty as they used to be; and it is very much to be desired, in the interests of all those people who go down there on summer evenings to row at this time of the year, and on Saturdays and Sundays, that this part of the river should remain reasonably clean and pure so that they can take their pleasure thereon.
Anyone who goes down to that part of the river on a Saturday afternoon will be surprised to see the very large number of boats—eights, fours, pleasure boats, sculling skiffs, and boats of all sorts—"manned" by people of both sexes, who are taking their pleasure in that way, and these people are definitely nervous as to whether this Bill will not have the result of adding to the pollution and unpleasantness of that part of the river. The Middlesex County Council propose to put their outfall near to Isleworth Eyot, at a point at which, owing to the half-tide lock at Richmond, the river is naturally stagnant for considerable periods at the ebb and flow of the tide. I do not know whether hon. Members quite realise that the ebbing of the tide, during which this dirty water must move out to sea, occupies a period of eight hours, but, owing to the half-tide lock, the river runs low at Isleworth, and, therefore, when this effluent comes out, there will be over half a mile of the river bed filled with nothing but the discharge from the sewage of the Middlesex County Council, and, when the tide turns, that will be driven into a solid wedge of water and swept backwards to Richmond Lock, polluting the river all the time.
We are afraid, also, from the point of view of fish life. One of the greatest obstacles to this part of the Thames holding fish is not the dirt in the water at this part, but the outflow of sewage at Barking, which gives rise to an area of filth some four or five miles in length, which is carried daily up and down with the tide before being slowly broken up. Those who use the upper part of the tidal reaches of the river are very frightened lest this proposal should produce a similar belt of water which will be carried slowly up and down with the tide, killing the fish, polluting the river in these districts, and making boating a far more unpleasant job than it is at present.
There is another aspect of this Bill in which those for whom I speak are interested. As we understand it, the Middlesex County Council propose to turn into the river the storm water from a very large area—some 100,000 acres, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said—and we understand that at certain times of the year this storm water will be
brought down very quickly. It is quite true that the Bill contains a proposal obliging the Middlesex County Council to provide a catchment basin equal to one-quarter of the ordinary dry-weather flow of sewage, but I do not know whether the House has contemplated what is going to be the effect of a very heavy storm, when the water would come down within a period of, say, three hours from an enormous area and concentrate in the Thames. The House, perhaps, does not realise that that might on occasion lead to a rise in the tide at London Bridge of more than 22 feet. It is obvious that, if these sewers are efficient, rain water will reach the Thames and be concentrated in one spot at a much greater speed than would be the case if it came in, as it does at present, from many different places, carried by different streams the maximum flow of all of which is not attained at the same time, and whose mouths are many miles apart. If all that rain water is concentrated in the river at one spot, it is likely to produce a much more serious effect on the height of the river in London.
I admit that it is not a very common occurrence, but still, with a very heavy flow of rain coinciding with the tremendous discharge from this proposed new sewer, a 22-foot tide at London Bridge may be expected about eight times a year, and in such circumstances the chances of flooding, at any rate in these upper tidal reaches, would seem to me to be very greatly increased. The effect of all this water pouring into the narrow tidal estuary will be to bank up the flood tide and cause it to rise continually, until finally it bursts its banks and floods the land alongside it. Floods do not often occur in this part of London, although we have seen serious results from them in recent years, but in the higher reaches they are very serious for those who use the river, because, although the boat-houses are mostly built above the average level of the highest tides, anything which tends to increase the liability to flooding is a positive detriment to these people. For these reasons, those who boat on the Thames are nervous about this Bill, and I hope that whoever replies on behalf of the Middlesex County Council will be able to give us a satisfactory answer on these points.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The House aways requires a very strong case indeed before it rejects a Private Bill on Third Reading. I do not think that there has even been an instance, certainly for many years past, in which a Private Bill has been rejected on Third Reading unless it could be alleged, and alleged with a great show of truth, or any rate of conviction, that the Bill involved large questions of principle. The bitterest opponent of this Bill could not say that it raised any large question of principle. Indeed, so far from its raising any large question of principle, it comes to this House as an unopposed Bill. It was introduced in another place, and there were, I think, the usual number of petitions from people who were anxious to be satisfied, but all except three of them were satisfied before the ease was even heard by the Committee of the House of Lords, and before it reached its Committee stage in this House every single petition had been settled, and the Bill was not dealt with by an ordinary Committee, where people are heard in opposition to the Bill, because there was no opponent. My hon. and gallant Friends were not there, and no one else was there to oppose, so it went before the Committee on Unopposed Bills, with the keen approval of every local authority concerned in this area. It went there with the strong support of the Port of London Authority, who are concerned with maintaining the purity of the River Thames in this area, and with the strong support of the Metropolitan Water Board, who have to look after the purity of the water that we drink. It is not surprising that it had, and has, that overwhelming measure of support. Anything more unlike the proposals of the Bill than the description that my hon. and gallant Friend gave it would be impossible to conceive. One would suppose, from what he said, that this was a proposal for the first time to put sewage effluent into the Thames. It is not the case. What is happening to the sewage effluent of the 27 local authorities to-day?

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: They are polluting the tributaries of the Thames.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For the first time in all the years that we have sat together in the House, I really resent something that my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I resent his attack on
the Middlesex County Council for carrying through a great work of purification. He says the sewage of these 27 authorities comes into the tributaries of the Thames. He did not tell us so in his speech, but that is what is happening to-day. The whole of the sewage which this Bill is going to deal with is finding its way into the Thames to-day in a state of impurity which is a very great inconvenience to everyone. If we do not pass this Bill, it goes on and every one of these authorities will go on increasing its sewage works. Some of them have plans in hand for doing it if the Bill is rejected. Instead of putting up an efficient and up-to-date plant, they would go on expanding, as a relatively small authority must, with the kind of works that there are to-day. What is proposed is to concentrate the whole of the sewage works of these 27 authorities in a single works, the most scientific and up-to-date sewage works that have yet been established. The ablest engineers have been called in, and, for the first time in the history of the country, the effluent coming into the river is going to conform to the standard of efficiency and purity that was laid down by the Royal Commission. Actually at this moment three of these sewage works are sending their relatively foul sewage into the Thames just about where the Metropolitan Water Board takes its offtake at Kingston. My hon. and gallant Friend is drinking that at present.

Mr. MESSER: He is not.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would be difficult even for the hon. Member to preach temperance in such circumstances. What is going to happen now is that the whole of this is going to be concentrated, and the effluent will be of a purity such as has hitherto been unknown. That is why the Port of London Authority and the Metropolitan Water Board are supporting this, and that is why, without any hesitation, I commend this great attempt at purifying the Thames to the House. It is a very economical scheme. All these local authorities have got together and asked the Middlesex County Council, as their combined agent, to undertake the work. They have brought in the best engineers. It is very efficient, it is economical and it is good business. I do not think I have ever come across a scheme that
made a greater appeal to me by its sheer efficiency. If all the schemes that came before the St. Davids Committee were as sound economically as this, we should almost be conquering unemployment by now. There is a tremendous amount of work for the unemployed in this, and it is really economical work.
Who is objecting to the Bill? No notice was ever given. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) mentioned to me the case of the Rugby Union. He wished to be sure that they were not going to be prejudiced. The Rugby Union, whose ground everyone would wish to preserve, will certainly not suffer. At present it has the pleasure of being situated midway between two open sewage works. The old works will be abolished. The Heston works will go, because they will become the site of the new and greatly improved undertaking. The only thing that can possibly cause a nuisance, the sludge, is going to be taken away by high pressure pumps through a great pipe six miles away from the Rugby Union, and their patrons will in future enjoy their matches with far less risk than they do now. If people want to make a case in detail, the proper way is, first of all, by seeing the promoters. I am told that the promoters of the Bill have never had any approach made to them by anyone on whose behalf objection is made in the House. There was no appearance before the Committee. With regard to the girls' school, the existing sewage works is debouching its effluent above the water level, closer to the girls' school than the ultimate outlet is going to be. So far as the actual outfall goes, the girls' school will certainly be no worse off. It has been sitting near a sewage farm all this time. Instead of sitting near the old sewage farm, it will be equally close to the up-to-date one, which cannot be called a nuisance. If, by any chance, there was the slightest damnification to these people, if a. nuisance was caused—and I do not think any nuisance can possibly be caused—a special Clause has been put in which preserves a right of action.
So much for the girls' school. There is the case which certainly requires to be answered, made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). Excessive storm water finds its
way into the Thames. If no precaution is taken, it might be argued with some force that the greater concentration of the storm water would send it into the river with greater force and at greater speed and that might, at very exceptional seasons of the year, have an occasional adverse effect upon the river. With great moderation he said that was not a reason for holding up the Bill, but he wanted an assurance that it was going to dealt with. I have been informed by the very distinguished engineer in charge of these plans that special precautions have been taken, and that a special reservoir is to be constructed to receive the storm water and to control its outlet into the river. The best guarantee which I can give is that, whereas the Ministry of Health who adopted the findings of the Royal Commission laid down a certain standard of size in respect of such a reservoir, in this case that size is to be doubled. That shows a great desire to meet the position, and I think that it does sufficiently meet the position. It was necessary to expose to the House in its reality what is the project before it to-night, and which comes to it with such unanimous support from all those concerned in the matter. I hope that without more ado the House will give the Bill the Third Reading.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) has relieved me of the necessity of saying very much. This is a £5,250,000 scheme which has resulted from proposals made by the Government to local authorities last year. It is a scheme for rationalising the very unsatisfactory system of sewage disposal in a large part of the county of Middlesex. I believe it will do it effectively, and that it will improve the system of sewage disposal in London. Sewage disposal is not a new problem. The assumption underlying the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member who opposed the Bill was that no sewage was going into the Thames, and that certainly no sewage was being taken into the Thames above the tidal part of the river. At least we get rid of that, and there is going to be a higher standard of purification than has been supplied anywhere in the country, even for small systems, where the sewage can be much
more offensive than in the larger cases. I cannot see any real grounds for opposition. The girls of St. Margaret's School, rowing men, and fishermen, I think, will all be better off in consequence of this Bill, in view of the fact that there is unanimity, not merely amongst the local authorities in the area, but among the Metropolitan Water Board—which is responsible for providing pure water—the Port of London Authority, and the Thames Conservancy. The House may well give the Bill its Third Reading, and I think that it ought to do so.

King's Consent signified.

Orders of the Day — SALVATION ARMY BILL (By Order).

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Election of General of the Salvation Army.)

Mr. EDE: I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
(8) This section shall not come into force until it has been submitted to and approved by at least three-fourths of the census boards in each country in which the Salvation Army has a territorial commander, and a statement of the result of such submission, signed by the General, has been filed in the central office.
This House, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) in the previous Debate, does not reject a Bill on Third Reading, or amend it when it comes from one of the Private Bill Committees, un less a very considerable case is made out, and I hope this evening that such a case can be made out. I would like to draw attention to the peculiar way in which this particular Bill comes before the House. There was a Motion—

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: On a point of Order. Will it be in order on this Amendment to discuss the conditions under which this Bill came to the House? I think that that is a matter which can be discussed on the Motion for the Third Reading.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment which is before the House.

Mr. EDE: This Amendment aims at allowing the rank and file of the Salvation Army to give their opinion upon the main Clause of this Bill before the Bill becomes operative. The Salvation Army is one of the organisations, which, I think, convinces most men that the age of miracles is not past. The history of the last 60 years of this particular organisation is probably unique in the history of the world. It is the history of the inspired idea of one man being carried into effect by the loyal, self-sacrificing work of a very large number of quite humble individuals who have had to carry out his ideas in the localities where the Army has become rooted. This is the first time that this particular organisation has come to this House asking for the sanction of the House to any of its proposals or to any modification of its trust deeds. So marvellous is the structure of this organisation, that I should not like to inflict upon the House the long description which might be necessary to justify this particular Amendment. I will, therefore, ask the permission of the House to summarise it in the words of a former Member of this House who had every qualification for expressing an authoritative opinion, the late Mr. Sylvester Home who was at one time the Member for Ipswich. In his "Popular History of the Free Churches" he says:
Lest it should be supposed "—

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman—I know he will forgive me as I do not mean it personally—is endeavouring to make a speech which would be more appropriate on the Third Reading. The Amendment, as I see it, suggests that the election of General of the Salvation Army should be made in a particular way. The hon. Gentleman, I understand, is going to quote—I have some recollection of it myself—certain criticism about this organisation coming to the House of Commons, and surely it will not be in order to do so on this particular point.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: On that point of Order. The remarks of the hon. Member would, I suggest, come pro-
perly on the Motion which stands in his name to reject the Third Reading.

Mr. EDE: May I submit that the quotation which I was going to read is not any such quotation as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested? It deals entirely with this particular organisation, the method of its inception and growth, and would have been aimed, if you had permitted it to be read, at proving that before this Bill comes into operation, if it receives the Third Reading, the rank and file should be consulted, which is the object of the Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When the hon. Gentleman was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman, I was not quite sure to what he was leading up. I do not know yet what is the connection of the quotation with the Amendment, and whether it is in order or not. If it has no bearing upon the Amendment it is not in order.

Mr. EDE: I know that it is an exceedingly difficult matter to deal with this Amendment. I am trying strictly to comply with the Ruling which you gave at the commencement of my speech, and am trying to avoid making anything like a Third Reading speech. Mr. Home, after dealing with the work of Dr. Dale and Robert Browning in the 19th century, said:
Lest it should be supposed that such contributions to the defence of the faith were the principal ones which the age were to owe to Free Churchmen, it will be necessary to speak of a new and marvellous movement which convincingly demonstrated that evangelical passion was neither dead nor dying. The greatest argument for Christianity is not, and can never be, intellectual; it is practical.
He then points out that the Free Churches had failed to make any effect on the mode of life of what he called the criminal classes, and he went on to say:
William Booth had been a preacher in the Methodist New Connexion. He had married a woman of whom it can be said without exaggeration that she was one of the noblest forces of her age. Together they worked out the scheme of the Salvation Army, and began to direct its operations in East London. Strange and repellant as many of its methods and much of its phraseology were, autocratic as its government was, it had to be judged by its results. The Army was only created in 1877, but it was soon seen that the higher spirit of soldierhood, complete devotion to the cause for which the fight was waged "—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Nothing that the hon. Member has quoted has anything to do with the approval of the census boards.

Mr. EDE: The point that I desire to make is this, that here we have an organisation which, up to the present time, has been a voluntary organisation of people who have been holding a faith and practising a life in accordance with the trust deed that was drawn up by the Rev. William Booth when he started the movement in Whitechapel 60 years ago. He in his time and they up to the present time have been able to manage their affairs under that trust deed. When this Bill was brought before the House, the Attorney-General made a report in which he drew attention to the various points that were raised in the Measure. He made it quite plain that there were certain things that he thought ought to be proved before the Bill should be assented to by the House of Commons. He said:
The English law has always regarded the intentions of the founder of a charitable trust, expressed in the deed or will creating the trust, as possessing a peculiar sanctity…How far can the proposals in this Bill he said to represent the wishes of the members of the Salvation Army…Parliament should be satisfied that the overwhelming majority of Salvation Army members desire that the proposed alterations should be made…By "members" I mean, not merely the officers but the rank and file.
I think it will be generally agreed, even by the supporters of the Bill, that in connection with a private Bill it is up to the promoters to prove their case. Until a prima facie case has been submitted by the promoters and has been proved to have some strength in it, there is no call on the opponents of the Measure to produce contrary arguments. Before such a voluntary association as the Salvation Army can be turned into a body relying for its faith and practice upon an Act of Parliament, there should be strong proof that the individual members of the organisation desire it by a very large majority. I am one of those who always dislike to see a religious body having to come to this House for any sanctions, but, unfortunately, in the history of religious organisations, the freest of churches have found themselves compelled to come to this House and to ask for certain sanctions. I suggest that before the House gives this Bill its sanction it should
be assured that it has a very large majority of the organisation behind it in so doing.
What are the facts in this case 1 Some 5,000 officers, all of them, I believe, paid officers, have been consulted, and of those 5,000 officers a very large majority have declared themselves in favour of the Bill. That is conceded from the first, but that fact is by no means conclusive in as widespread and all-embracing an organisation as the Salvation Army. I am told that even in this country there are 20,000 officers who have not been consulted, not paid officers but unpaid officers, the people whose predecessors and themselves by their voluntary labours have built up this great organisation. When one goes to the overseas organisation, which represents three times as many people as the Salvationists in this country—I believe I have under-estimated the figure in saying three times as many—one finds that they have not been consulted at all. Prior to the introduction of the Bill, a committee were considering reforms in the Army and they recommended that legislation should not be sought in order that the Army could be brought into conformity with what might be the desires of the ruling powers at the moment. In spite of that recommendation the Bill was proceeded with, and it was not until the Bill had been launched for some weeks that any effort was made to ascertain the feelings of the rank and file, even to the limit of extent that I have indicated in the figures that I have given.
The organisation with which we are dealing to-night has managed to get its international influence very largely through the structure upon which it has been built up to the present time. To crystallise it into an Act of Parliament, to make its trust deed and the method of appointing its general a Schedule of a British Act of Parliament is not going to make international organisation as easy as it has been in the past. That there have been difficulties no one can deny, but I would point out that this Bill is not one that will remove those difficulties. Again, I turn to the report of the Attorney-General. He said:
I desire to draw the attention of Parliament to the fact that in the absence of a secret nomination by his predecessor, the General of the Salvation Army is to be appointed by the High Council. The Bill does
not therefore provide a new and untried method of appointing a General, but merely gets rid of one of two alternative methods.
The Bill actually reduces the freedom of the ruling powers of the Salvation Army to deal with the matter. A very wide international movement like the Salvation Army ought not to be hampered as it may very well be by having its policy confined within the Schedule of an Act of Parliament, unless this House can be assured that the humblest members of the Salvation Army, equally with those who are responsible for Headquarters organisation, are in accord with the proposals of the Bill. This House of Commons, in my opinion, is the very last body to settle questions of faith and practice of any religious denomination. I am not so much concerned in this Amendment or in the Bill as a whole with anything that has to do with the property of the Salvation Army; I am concerned here with faith and practice and leadership, which I believe have been the main springs of the Salvation Army's success. Unless the Salvation Army as a whole desires to alter them I believe it will be much better to leave them in the position they have been hitherto.

Mr. FRANK SMITH: I beg to Second the Amendment.
Like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) I feel considerable difficulty in dealing with a single issue when the Bill has not been debated as a whole. One of the curious features about the Bill is that it has never been before the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now discussing an Amendment dealing with the election of the General, and the hon. Member must confine himself to that question.

Mr. SMITH: I hope impetuosity will be governed by a little generosity. I desire to support every word that the hon. Member for South Shields has said because I have a peculiar knowledge of the work of this organisation. For some years I was associated with the founder of this great movement, and I can say without fear of contradiction that I knew, and know, his mind concerning the organisation which he claimed, and which the Army as a whole believes today, he was divinely inspired to undertake. I will not for a moment ask the
House to go into a theological discussion upon divine inspiration.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member did I should not allow it. The hon. Member must realise that Clause 3 deals with the election of the General of the Salvation Army and the Amendment is to secure the approval of a certain number of people. That is all that arises on this Amendment.

Mr. SMITH: Yes, but it appears to me to go right down to the foundation of things concerning the Salvation Army, the election of the General and the powers which the General shall exercise. We are moving this Amendment in order to ensure that those who form the Army shall have a voice in the election of its General. We shall hear no doubt that General Higgins comes to the House with the weight of a majority behind him to ask for changes in the constitution of the Army.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Yes, so he does.

Mr. SMITH: I am glad that I am right for once. There are some people, and I am one, who want to know what is the Salvation Army—

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: Has this anything to do with the Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must try and confine himself to the Amendment. He will have an opportunity of discussing the Bill on the Third Reading.

Mr. SMITH: I was under the impression that I was very much on the Amendment. It lays it down that in the judgment of some people before sanction should be given to an alteration of the foundation deeds of this organisation that those who are connected with it as an organisation shall have a full right to have their voices heard as to how the election shall take place. I heard General Higgins, when speaking to hon. Members of this House, say that it was undesirable for a plebiscite to be taken of the members of the Salvation Army and also that it was impossible to secure a decision from the rank and file of the Army. I wish to controvert that statement. Anyone who is acquainted with the organisation of the Salvation Army
knows that from top to bottom there are unbroken lines of communication, which enables those at the top to communicate their wishes to the youngest recruit in the ranks, and I suggest that the machinery that is capable of conveying wishes from the top to the bottom is also capable of conveying wishes from the bottom to the top. We shall be told that 5,000 officers support the General in promoting this Bill.
There is one statement in the report of the Attorney-General which really destroys the right of the promoters of this Bill to bring it forward in this form. The Attorney-General refers to a charitable trust possessing a peculiar sanctity. The Salvation Army from one end to the other believes in that sanctity. The learned Attorney-General, dealing with the point, says that in his judgment no alteration should be sanctioned unless it can be proved that the overwhelming majority of the Salvation Army are behind it. If that is sound—I believe it is as sound as it is just—what objection can there be to giving the rank and file of the Army the fullest opportunity of expressing their views regarding those who shall lead and direct them? We shall be told that certain of them were consulted. How were they consulted? They received one morning by post a Bill of 50 pages, and they were required to reply to headquarters, in course of post, their acceptance or rejection of the Bill, which they had never seen, concerning which they had never been consulted and of which they knew nothing.

Mr. BOYCE: Would the hon. Member make clear what he means? He says that they were required to reply "in course of post." Does he mean that they were required to reply by return of post?

Mr. SMITH: In course of post. That was the term used in the letter—" in course of post." That cannot be held to be anything of the nature of a fair and clear opportunity to discuss the merits of the case. Therefore, when in this Amendment we ask that this Section shall not come into force until it has been submitted to the various component parts of the Army, both at home and abroad, we are asking that which is fundamental democracy. We have been told that these proposals are made in
order to democratise the organisation. If that is the fundamental desire, there can be no objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. The Amendment is reasonable and just and fair, because the rank and file of the Army are those who maintain it, who do its work and who provide its funds, and surely there can be no objection to giving them the fullest opportunity to exercise their judgment in a matter of this kind.
9.0 p.m.
The limited number of officers who voted are officers in this country alone. They are said to number 5,000. But there are 25,000 officers, full-time and paid, throughout the world. There are 250,000 local officers who are engaged in assisting to maintain the organisation, and there are probably upwards of 1,500,000 of soldiery. In view of those colloseal figures, which cannot be denied, ought the House to be satisfied with the mere adherence of 5,000 to warrant changes in the foundation deed of the Army? It is because of the elementary principle of right and of common honesty, and in the name of democracy, that I second the Amendment. I would support any proposal for the organisation of the Army if I were assured that it represented the wishes of the majority. No evidence has been given that these proposals represent the wish of the majority. They have never been consulted, and the present head of the Army in my hearing said that it was undesirable to consult them. Unless those who ask for the alteration of the foundation deed can assure the House that they come here with the full backing and good will of those whom they claim to represent, this House should not agree to the proposal. I ask the House to safeguard the Measure by laying it down that, even though a Third Reading be granted to the Bill—I hope it will not—the Bill shall operate only when the Army as a whole has had an opportunity of stating its views.

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the House will allow me to state the effect of this Clause of the Bill, and also what the Amendment purports to do. I think that, having heard that statement, the House will not incorporate this Amendment in the Bill. This Amendment does not, as the Mover and Seconder seemed to think, deal with the Bill as a whole but simply with one Clause—Clause 3, which is
entitled, "Election of General of the Salvation Army." For the information of hon. Members who may not be aware of it, I may say that the present position as regards the election of the General of the Salvation Army is, roughly, as follows. If the Bill, including this Clause, is not passed, the present General of the Salvation Army can appoint his successor by means of what is called the "secret envelope" system, and if that method is not adopted, then the next General is elected by the High Council of the Salvation Army. This Clause is unanimously recommended by the committee which examined the Bill, and it simply says that in future no General of the Salvation Army shall be permitted to appoint his successor by means of the "secret envelope" system.
I should think that that provision has only to be stated to receive unanimous acceptance in the House, and, as I say, the Committee which dealt with the Bill unanimously recommend it, at the request of the promoters. I cannot conceive that anyone would wish for the continuance of what is, I think, a most undesirable method to be used by the head of a great religious and social institution of this kind in appointing his successor. The effect of the Bill therefore is that the operation of the "secret envelope" system is done away with, but the prevailing practice or rather the prevailing rule, in the Salvation Army, namely, that the General shall be elected by the High Council is maintained. That is already in the existing constitution and in the trust deed and therefore no alarming revolution is taking place but merely the elimination from the constitution of what is known as the "secret envelope" system.
What does the Amendment seek to do? I do not think that I have ever heard or read of a more extraordinary Amendment being submitted to the British House of Commons. It says, with regard to one particular matter, namely, the elimination of the "secret envelope" system in connection with the appointment of a General, that before the Clause comes into operation—although it has been passed by the British House of Commons—it shall not come into force until it has been submitted to and approved by three-quarters of the census board in each country, in which the Sal-
vation Army has a territorial commander, and a statement of such result has been filed at the general headquarters of the Army. We must remember that this vast and wonderful organisation has over 1,000,000 adherents and that it is operating in no fewer than 82 countries and colonies in which 73 different languages are spoken. Yet this Amendment means that before this Clause can be approved and the "secret envelope" system altered, the proposal must have received the assent of three-quarters of those concerned in all these different countries and colonies. The proposition is obviously impossible. No one can say that this House would not be stultifying itself if it passed such a prohibition upon its own legislation. We have to decide that this system is to be eliminated, or that it is not to be eliminated, and it is idle to suggest such a proposal as this with regard to the operation of the Clause.
Those are, roughly, the propositions upon which the House has to come to a decision. The Attorney - General is present and it has been submitted that in his report he suggests that the House ought not to approve of this Bill, unless the Bill has received not merely the support of the officers of the Salvation Army, but also of the rank and file, and that in the alternative the proposal ought to be examined with a very critical eye. But I do not think it can be pretended for a moment that when the hon. and learned Gentleman wrote that report he had in mind any other than the rank and file and officers of the Salvation Army in this country. No British Attorney-General is going to suggest that, in such a case as this, all the million and more adherents of the Salvation Army scattered up and down the world have to be consulted. Obviously that phrase in the Attorney-General's statement refers to the Salvation Army in this country. It is not therefore germane to the Amendment because the Amendment is not limited to asking for the approval of the rank and file in this country, but suggests that there should be a plebiscite throughout the world. As regards the views of the Army in this country, the answer, shortly, is, in the first place, that the General of the Salvation Army has satisfied the Committee that he has taken every possible step to give information
concerning these proposals, and, as a practical man, to ascertain the wishes of the Army itself. The Committee are unanimously satisfied on that point. Secondly, it has been frankly admitted by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that the overwhelming majority of the officers are in favour of the Bill, and, thirdly, I do not think and the Committee which had to examine the Bill did not think, that it is practical politics that there should be a poll of all the adherents of the Salvation Army in this country.
The final test is this. I ask the House to observe the number of petitions against the Bill. It would have been easy, as those who oppose the Bill know full well, if a large number of members of the Salvation Army were against the proposals, to obtain their signatures to a petition against the Bill. With a great organisation such as this, I should not be surprised if even the small minority against the Bill had been able to obtain some hundreds of people who would desire to oppose it. But, as a matter of fact, I think there are 27 people who signed the petitions against it. When these facts are stated, it is apparent to every fair-minded person that every reasonable step has been taken to make the Salvation Army in this country duly acquainted with the Bill; secondly, there is the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Army are in favour of it; and, finally, the Amendment itself is impracticable and impossible.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This Amendment has been moved, I am quite certain, in good faith, but the effect of it clearly would be to wreck' the Bill. Hon. Members are entitled to move such an Amendment, because that is their desire, but it is for the House to consider whether it desires the Bill to be wrecked in that way. My right hon. Friend has stated with complete clarity and force what are the main objections to the Amendment, and I would like to emphasise the utter impracticability of such an Amendment in operation. There are no fewer than 15,000 census boards scattered all over the world, knowing nothing whatever about the constitution of the Army in England, speaking their own languages, and the issue would have to be presented to them in almost every
known language, because there are 80 nations where the Army operates and 40 territorial officers, who would have to be taken off their great work and have their attention directed to this issue. That would have to be the work of the Salvation Army for at least 12 months to come. Do my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment really intend that? I am pretty sure that they do not. It is impracticable to work such an Amendment.
Then let the House think back for a moment to what has happened within its own Committee. This House delegated to a Committee upstairs the special duty of considering this Bill in detail, and the Clause to which this Amendment is moved was one which took up a very considerable part—I am not sure it was not the major part—of the attention of the Committee. To that Committee there was submitted the whole range of evidence which was obtainable, and we must assume that that was so, because the six petitions which were presented were presented in the names of those in this country who must be assumed to be best aware of any possible opposition to this Clause; and our Committee—ourselves, really, in microcosm—heard all these things at very great length. The conclusion to which they came was that the report of the Attorney-General dealing with the specific point that they should be satisfied that the rank and file and the general opinion of the Army had been sufficiently consulted, and was sufficiently instructed as to what were the merits or demerits of this proposal, namely, the election of the General, had been met.
Having done that, they sent this Bill down to us with this Clause exactly as it is, and the House has to decide, here and now, whether it will sidetrack that Clause, and indeed this Bill, and transfer this Debate from the Floor of this House to 15,000 census boards scattered all over the world, talking all kinds of languages, and switching themselves off from their real work to such a discussion as that. Having stated the matter in that way, I have not the slightest doubt, in spite of what the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said about common honesty, as to what is my duty, and I shall not have the slightest hesitation in voting against the Amendment.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Fortunately in this matter we have the guidance of the learned Attorney-General, and I rise to ask him a question. The House has already heard his statement, which I will repeat. It was as follows:
Before giving favourable consideration to these proposals, Parliament should be satisfied that they are in accord with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Salvation Army members, and by members I mean, not merely the officers, but the rank and file.
Those are the words of the learned Attorney-General, on whose guidance we have to rely, and I venture to ask him whether he is now satisfied that the evidence in his possession satisfies this condition?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I will answer that question at once by saying that I merely propounded a question. I left it to the Committee to decide the matter, merely putting before the Committee such considerations as I thought might prove useful to them. I have not the least idea of what the evidence before the Committee was, and, to be quite frank, I have not followed it at all. I have no means for saying even that they posed that question to themselves, still less whether they were justified in answering it one way or the other. I am not going to take any part in this discussion. I have taken throughout a completely impartial and neutral point of view. It may be that I may still have to go on trying to bring the parties together, and I am very anxious to do so if I can. I think my position to do that usefully would be weakened by my casting a vote on this Bill one way or the other, and therefore I propose to take no part either in the discussion or in the Division.

Sir K. WOOD: When the learned Attorney-General spoke about the necessity of obtaining the views of the rank and file, will he say whether he meant all over the world or only in this country?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I meant the rank and file in this country.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In regard to the question as to whether the census boards are the rank and file, they certainly are not. The census boards are composed of the divisional officer for every division ex officio, the commander,
the lieutenant and seven non-commissioned officers. They are at the moment, and have been all along, in the closest touch with these officers, who have been consulted and who have returned an overwhelming majority. It is true that responsibility works upwards as well as downwards, and I have no doubt that if there had been any large body of feeling at all on the Bill, the seven noncommissioned officers on every census board who are to be the court of appeal under this Amendment would have made their views heard long before this to the divisional commanders.
I have no doubt that any Member of this House who took advantage of the Easter Recess, as I did, to spend some part of it attending the Easter festival of the Salvation Army in his own district, would be under no doubt whatever that the great mass of the rank and file not merely desire the Bill to go through, but are praying that it may go through. The census board is not the rank and file. I do not want to add any words to those of the right hon. Gentleman as to the difficulty of taking the views of the census board, not merely in this country but all over the world.

Mr. LEE: The House may take it for granted that the Committee were at great pains to find out whether the rank and file had been consulted, and they were satisfied that the General had done all possible in that respect. I would point out what the essential question is. In the first instance, it was not called the Salvation Army, but the Christian Mission. They deliberately altered that to Salvation Army, and founded their system upon the military system. They called their superintendent the General of the Army and adopted the military method right through, from the General to the rank and file—lieutenant, captain, and so on. Does anyone know any instance of where the rank and file of any of the religions organisations of this country have been consulted with regard to the heads of those organisations? I am a Wesleyan Methodist and I am not consulted as to who should be the President of that body. A great number of the Members of this House belong to the Church of England. What have they to do with the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury or even of their
own parish priest? While, in theory, I agree that the rank and file should have something to say, in practice I am quite sure it is quite impracticable. The Army is now simply to be placed into something like the position of the rest of the religious organisations in this country. The Committee took great pains to find out how far this question had been brought before the rank and file.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir K. WOOD: On behalf of those who are promoting this Bill I should like to make some re-statement with reference to their motives in bringing these proposals forward, and on the contents of the Bill. I know that there are certain objections raised to the Bill, amongst which has been the hope which was expressed that the Salvation Army would have been able to avoid coming before this House and seeking any Parliamentary sanction to any of these proposals. On that point, I should like to say that there is nothing in the Bill which affects any doctrinal matter, nor does it touch in the slightest degree upon the activities or methods of the Salvation Army, or in any way affect the work for which the Army stands. The Bill has no concern whatever with the philanthropic work of the Army or its administrative control in any part of the world. I think that that should be clearly stated and understood from the commencement. Parliamentary intervention is sought for, and is entirely con-fined to, a modification of the existing secular machinery, and has no concern with any religious or spiritual matter whatsoever. The Bill is simply confined to two vital and imperative reforms which are certainly most desirable in the interests of the Army.
My first statement on behalf of the promoters is that the contents of the Bill are put forward with the unanimous endorsement of the committee which inquired into it. Secondly, I think I can say that every one of the pieces of advice
of the Attorney-General to the House has been complied with. The Bill deals simply with two matters, one of which we have just been discussing, namely, the future election of the generals by the High Council. Secondly, it deals with the vesting of all the very large amount of property of the Army in England and Northern Ireland in a trustee company. Both of those reforms are not only of importance to the Army itself, but of considerable public and national importance. I do not think the wisdom of either of these reforms can be doubted. We have briefly discussed the elections of generals by the High Council, and I think everybody will agree that in an organisation of this kind a great deal depends on the high characteristics and leadership of the General. It is certainly necessary in a wonderful institution of this kind that the General should have the full confidence of the rank and file, and public confidence as well. I do not wish to refer at any length to the present method, but no one has referred with greater discretion and emphasis to this particular method of nominating the General by secret envelope than the Attorney-General himself. He said:
I do not doubt that the existence of the sealed envelope containing the name of the successor to the office of General and the power of the General to alter the name of his successor at will up to the time of his death or retirement, greatly aggravated the internal dissensions within the Army both before and after the removal of General Bramwell Booth from the office of General.
One need make no comment on that very wise statement. All that the first part of the Bill does is simply to abolish that system, and I want at once to say—again supported, as I am, by the Attorney-General's statement—that only an Act of Parliament can abolish that system. I want to make that perfectly plain. If anybody has any doubt, the Attorney-General will confirm me when I say that, having regard to the constitution and the two deeds of the Salvation Army, it is impossible to eliminate that most undesirable method of appointing a General of the Salvation Army without coming to Parliament to do it. Such a method of appointing the head of a great social and religious organisation has entirely outgrown whatever usefulness it ever had and is out of date, and undoubtedly the proposal in this Bill that in future all Generals of the Salvation
Army are to be elected by the High Council is obviously the desirable and long overdue reform. So far as other parts of the Army outside these islands are concerned they are represented upon the High Council, and by that means some attempt is made to bring in the views and the desires of other countries. It should not be forgotten that this country was the birthplace of the Salvation Army; its roots are here, and to a very large extent its inspiration comes from this country.
There is another reform in these proposals, and I should say that of all the reforms that are desirable in connection not only with the Salvation Army but with other social and philanthropic institutions, this one is the most necessary; and I doubt whether any Member of the House will be prepared to go into the Lobby and vote against it. It proposes that in future all properties belonging to the Salvation Army are to vest in a board of custodian trustees. Surely the present method by which the vast properties, sums of money and gifts which come to the Salvation Army—and I hope will come increasingly in future years—are vested in one man, is very undesirable. The evil—and there is no other word for it—of sole trusteeship is everywhere condemned to-day, and particularly in the case of the Salvation Army, to which the contributions from the public come every year in such large sums. There is no doubt that large numbers of people, who perhaps would desire to give gifts, think that the system by which the property is vested in the name of one man does not make for stability, and does not give the safeguards which certainly ought to be given in cases of this kind.
Looking at it solely from the point of view of cost and difficulty, what more undesirable system can you have than that on the death of a General the property should vest in his executors, and that the executors should have to transfer the property to the name and into the possession of the new General? No one would say that this is a desirable method of conducting the Salvation Army's business, for it is not only very costly, but raises many difficulties. This Clause insures the maintenance of stability in the Army with the minimum of expense so far as transfer is concerned. The Attorney-General again has
recommended to the House that this course should be taken. He says:
With regard to the vesting of the Army in a trustee company as custodian trustee, it is obviously inexpedient for the whole of the property in this country in a large charitable organisation to be vested and to remain in the sole control of one person, as in the Salvation Army is the case with regard to the General for the time being.
Therefore, both these Clauses have been recommended by the Attorney-General, and they have received the unanimous sanction of the Committee. We believe, and I think the Committee was completely satisfied, that the proposals in this Bill are not only necessary and vital to the Salvation Army, but have received the overwhelming support of the Army itself. Anybody who is associated with it and desires to see its work prosper and extend, cannot stand by a system which permits one individual to have the whole of the property vested in his name. Anyone associated with the Army, too, desires to see the method of the appointment of General by the system of secret envelopes and nominations of that kind done away with. It can be said that this Bill is greatly in the Interest of the Salvation Army and its manifold public and social work; that it will increase the confidence of the nation and of those large numbers of rich and poor who have so generously supported, and still desire to support its philanthropic and humane activities; and that it will secure a vitally important and, I believe, eminently desirable reform; and I strongly commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. KNIGHTrose—

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Mr. KNIGHT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The House is aware that this Amendment stands on the Order Paper in the names of several hon. Members, and I ask the courtesy of the House to proceed with it. We are in a special difficulty because a similar tactic was used on the Second Reading, and the House was debarred of the opportunity of considering this important matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had been longer in the House he would have known more about procedure.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am saying that this House by an accident did not have an opportunity on a previous occasion of considering this Bill. That is a plain matter of fact, and I respectfully call attention to it now as showing the special difficulty we are in. The feeling between both sides of the House on this matter is much more genuine than some hon. Members think. We do not desire in any part of the House to take any course that will harm the Salvation Army. We are all united in our desire to do anything in our power to further the work of this great organisation. Changes have got to take place in the organisation of the Army, it must bring its machinery up to date, and there is a general desire on all sides of the House to assist it to do so. I am moving the rejection of the Bill for the following reasons, one a minor reason and the second a major reason. The minor reason I shall not dwell upon, because it has been the subject of a short discussion on the Amendment which was not proceeded with.
The learned Attorney-General advised the House that a certain condition should be satisfied. The Chairman in charge of the Bill has told us that the Committee were satisfied that the bulk of the officers and the rank and file of the Army have been consulted about this Bill. I am a perfectly impartial person in this matter, I intervened originally at the express desire of the widow of the late General, and I have no bias whatever, but I have received overwhelming evidence, which has reached other Members, that considerable numbers of the officers of the Army have not been consulted. However, that is a minor matter, which I do not press, except to remind the House that the test suggested by the Attorney-General cannot be satisfied on a true review of the evidence.
Now I come to the major reason. First of all, I am satisfied that it is unnecessary to come to this House at all to effect the purposes which are desired. Granted that a change must take place, it can be effected by amending the existing trust deeds. Those trust deeds were the result of the work of some of the most eminent lawyers who ever practised in our courts. Two of them were distinguished Members of this House, and I have been associated with them in the course of my life. One was the late Lord Haldane and the
other the late Lord Oxford. Those eminent men framed trust deeds designed to cover the two purposes covered by the Bill, a method of election of General and a method of vesting and distributing and disposing of the properties of the Army. There is not a lawyer in this House who will deny that by amending those trust deeds the purposes sought in this Bill can be achieved. I do not want to press the matter unduly, but I ask the House to act upon the view that a method which was adopted by the late Lord Oxford and the late Lord Haldane is a method which this House can with confidence allow to continue. I say that the business of the Salvation Army can be managed and changed by a revision of the existing deeds, and that it is unnecessary to come to the House of Commons. The existing law makes ample provision for it.
I beg the House to consider what will be the result of clamping an Act of Parliament on to the Salvation Army. We shall restrict its activities within the ambit of that Act of Parliament. We shall lay it down that it cannot change its General except by a method within the Act of Parliament. If hereafter anyone desires to change the method he will have to come to Parliament to amend the Act of Parliament. There can be no change in the vesting and distribution and managing of the property of the Salvation Army except through an amending Act of Parliament. If I were to stand alone in this matter, and I rejoice to think that I do not, I should remain convinced that at this time of day the more we can keep spiritual agencies outside the ambit of Acts of Parliament the better. I am astonished to find hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who, I understand, take up an attitude hostile towards this Amendment, ready to conic forward at this time of day to help to clamp on the Salvation Army the fetters of an Act of Parliament. I ask pardon for detaining the House so long, but I am satisfied, first, that the bulk of the members of the Salvation Army have not been consulted; I am satisfied that the purposes of the Bill can be effected without a new Act of Parliament and under the present statutes; and I am satisfied, also, that one of the worst disservices the House
could do to the Salvation Army would be to bring it within the ambit of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. F. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am supporting the rejection of the Bill with a very keen feeling of responsibility. First, I would like to make it clear that my activity in this matter does not arise from any personal feeling. I have been asked by numerous Members why I am opposing the Salvation Army. I am taking this action to help the Salvation Army, and I am doing it, not from personal motives, although I have grounds for doing so even from the personal point of view. It was my privilege to work with and to enjoy the confidence of the giants of the Salvation Army in the years gone by, the men who were inspired to create this movement. There is one peculiar circumstance which justifies my action to-night, and it is this: I know from personal experience, by contact with William Booth and his saintly wife, and their wonderful and no less illustrious son and successor, Bramwell Booth, that the one thing that they hoped would never come, and to which they were opposed in the strongest possible way, was Parliamentary interference with the work of the Salvation Army. I believe that in standing here to-night and taking this action I am voicing the wishes of the founder of the Salvation Army, and I say that, not with the desire to include a personal note, but because I want to give grounds for my action.
10.0 p.m.
It was really the political question which ultimately led to my severance officially from the Salvation Army. I wanted the founder to take advantage of legislative machinery and I remember him, as only those who were associated with him can remember him, saying that the moment Parliament interferes with the Salvation Army, or the Salvation Army associates itself with political machinery, that will be the beginning of the end of the Salvation Army. He said:
Parliamenary machinery works in one direction, and we are working in another.
The learned Attorney-General, in his report, stated that the views of the founder should be regarded with peculiar sanctity, and he goes on to say:
This form may have been the condition without which the Army would never have been established.
That is true. The world could never have had a Salvation Army under any other condition, and, under any other method of organisation than that which obtains to-day, and it is because I believe that any interference with that organisation will be detrimental to its work that I have seconded the Motion for the rejection of this Bill. It has been said that every opportunity-has been taken to find out the wishes of the officers and members of the Salvation Army. I have here a number of communications signed by officers of the Salvation Army. I will not read their names, but hon. Members can see them if they doubt my bona fides. This is what they say:
We, the undersigned loyal objectors to the Salvation Army Bill, shortly to come before the House of Commons, ask your help and assistance in voicing our views and making plain the grounds of our objections to the Bill. We are unable to speak for ourselves in the House of Commons, and we ask you to speak for us. Needless to say it is a matter of deep and sincere regret that we find ourselves in opposition to the proposal of cur leaders and comrades in the Army. It is distressing to us to appear to be in conflict, but as you know we are a loyal opposition, loyal to the Army and its principles which we love, and in which Borne of us have spent our lives. You know the Army and its work, its aim, and its organisation. You know what it has accomplished. We hope the House of Commons will not agree to the alteration as proposed in the Bill, and so enable us to continue our work on the lines which for all the past years have proved so eminently successful.
This communication is signed by a large number of officers, soldiers in the Army, from the highest to the humblest rank. We have been told that every effort has been made to secure adherence to the proposals of this Bill. I want to say that if efforts have been made to secure adherence efforts have been made also to suppress the expression of objections. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I hope those doubting Thomases will listen to what I am about to tell them. This is an illustration, one of many, of an officer of high rank in the Salvation Army, who writes as follows:
What will he the official attitude towards officers who take steps to present their views at Westminster in opposition to the Bill.
What is the answer? The answer of General Higgins to that inquiry from a loyal officer, loyal to the Army to the core, is this:
It would be contrary to all known principles of Salvation Army Government for you to oppose what the Army is now trying to accomplish.
Perhaps those who said "No" will have reason now to realise that there is another side. [Interruption.] I am not advertising names at the moment, for obvious reasons. We have been told that the support for the Bill was spontaneous; that is the impression that we have. An hon. Member of this House came to me on one occasion and said, "Here is undoubted proof that the Army wishes this Bill, because of the letters I have received from my constituency." How was that engineered? Here is a copy of a letter sent by instructions of headquarters to divisional headquarters:
Very Urgent.
My Dear Comrade.—I have just received a wire from Commissioner Horan intimating his desire that every commanding officer should write to their Member of Parliament on Monday, the day you receive this letter, urging his support to the Army's Bill.
Does that indicate a spontaneous, voluntary expression of opinion? And not only is this request made, which is an order—for those who know the spirit of the Salvation Army know that an expressed wish is an order—but it goes on to say:
You will realise that this must be done without fail on Monday, and your letter should be addressed to the House of Commons, Westminster, and should be worded as follows.
Here is the letter which hon. Members of this House received, and which they thought was a spontaneous expression of opinion—[Interruptio]—but which was engineered—[Interruption.] There are Members of this House who received it. These are the words which they were instructed to write to their Members of Parliament:
You will no doubt be aware that the Salvation Army Bill is being placed before Parliament, embodying certain desirable reforms, and I am writing you, therefore, on behalf of your Salvationist constituents "—
that is not from the constituents, but from the officer in charge—
expressing their desire that you should support the Army Bill as drawn. Yours truly "—
and then it says:
Sign, giving your title.
This was issued by the divisional commander from Nottingham, and the officer who sent me a copy of it puts these words at the bottom:
Salvation officers have no choice in this matter.

HON. MEMBERS: They did not do it!

Mr. SMITH: I make that statement to discount the idea which is prevalent that the backing which the Army Bill, or rather, General Higgins's Bill, has received, is a spontaneous one. It has been engineered, and does not reflect the real feeling of those who are held to have given expression to it.
I second the rejection of this Bill on the ground, which among others has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, that it is unnecessary, and I ask the House, ought this House to agree to its machinery being used where it is unnecessary? This Bill is unnecessary because what it asks for can be done without Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Do not let hon. Members be in a hurry. I am expressing my opinion, and I would ask them to allow me to explain it. The present deeds permit the election of a General, and, therefore, it is unnecessary. Does anyone contradict that? If they do let me point out that it has already been done; and what greater proof could there be of its being unnecessary than the fact that the present General was elected two years ago? Fancy coming to the House of Commons for an Act of Parliament costing thousands of pounds, for such a purpose. I protest in the name of the members of the Salvation Army—the men and women who are the Salvation Army—the men and women who stand at the street corner night after night day after day, and sometimes 10 and 12 hours on a Sunday. These are the Salvation Army. They are ignored at present; but I protest in their name against this wicked, wanton, and unnecessary expenditure of money given by large-hearted people, not to be squandered in this way, but to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to shelter the
homeless. On that ground also I ask the House to show its disapproval by the rejection of this Bill.
It is unnecessary, and the facts have proved it, because General Higgins him self was elected two years ago. As regards his trusteeship, I want the House to realise that this is really a camouflage claim. It means nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said it was safe guarding the property of the Salvation Army in a way that it had never been safeguarded before. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in the last 50 years' history of the Salvation Army a single thing has ever occurred that suggested that there were any grounds for fear as to the custody of the Army property? Two years ago, General Higgins was elected to the position he now holds, after having been a party to providing the only black page in the history of the Salvation Army, a page which, when historians write about this great movement in the years to come, will make its readers' faces burn with shame. In the name of religion one of the basest acts of treachery—

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Beading the hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Bill and must not deal with the history of the past.

Mr. SMITH: I thought I might be permitted to refer to those happenings, because the Attorney-General in his report refers to them. However, I am not pressing that line beyond saying that, if what they did two years ago, in regard to the election of their head, was legal, they can keep on doing it; and, if it is not legal, they ought not to try to secure the prestige and power of the House of Commons to lend shelter to it. The custodian trustees are not co-trustees with General Higgins. The illustration is that, instead of one man carrying the bag and dealing with its contents, half a dozen men will carry the bag, but the General, as the President of that company, will still he the only voice in regard to the matter, so that the idea that these custodian trustees are going to be of any value is a great mistake and has no foundation in fact.
The Bill is unnecessary and it is undesirable, because it will interfere with the foundation of the movement. Every-
one knows that when you begin to tamper with foundations, you put the structure in jeopardy. I am against it also because there is no proof that the army desires it; there is every proof that the army has never been consulted. Experience has shown that it is a bad policy to interfere with the internal machinery of a religious organisation. In this age, when most people are talking about Disestablishing the Church, are we to be asked to Establish the Salvation Army? I would ask the House to consider this final point. If the Bill is passed this House will deal one of the deadliest blows at one of the most vital points of the Salvation Army organisation, namely, its international aspect. There is no organisation of a religious nature which has gone sweeping round the world as has the Salvation Army. First of all, faced with opposition and great fears, it gradually overcame opposition, and has finally been received with open arms in every country in the world. Why? Because of the international spirit which it represents.
I have heard the founder, and his great son, time after time say, "The Salvation Army is not a national institution; it is international." As Wesley claimed the world as his parish, so the Salvation Army claims the world as its battlefield. The world has received the Salvation Army gladly because of its international character. If this House puts the fetters of a national institution upon the Salvation Army, it will deal one of the most deadly blows it is possible to deal. If you make it a national institution by an Act of the British Parliament, it will destroy its international appeal. I beg of you to leave the Salvation Army alone. Allow them to do their work in their own way, as they have done for the last 50 years, with honour to all concerned and with credit to the organisation and in a way which has earned them the affectionate regard of the world. Do not damage it. Do not interfere with it, but say to the promoters of the Bill, "Your past is sufficient to prove your ability to manage your own affairs. Go and do it. Do not come to this House and ask us to put national fetters upon you."

Sir D. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. F. Smith) cannot complain that the House has not given
him a full opportunity to say whatever he likes in whatever way he likes on his opposition to the Bill. Therefore that point has been completely disposed of. I will riot say anything about the hon. Member's speech except that he spoke words of denunciation which in my judgment, and I think in the opinion of the majority of the House, are not founded on fact.

Mr. SMITH: I can prove them.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to the letter which the hon. Member read, there are few Members of the House who have received that letter, and I am not in a position now to deal with the authenticity or otherwise of it, in so far as the high command is concerned.

Mr. SUTTON: Does it prove that they are against it?

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is a matter which, if it is considered worth while, will be inquired into. The hon. Member in the last part of his speech said that the Bill would impose the fetters of establishment on the Salvation Army. If that is the case, then we may say that there is establishment of the Wesleyan Church, establishment of the Baptist Church, establishment of the Congregational Church and establishment of the Presbyterian Churches. Such a Bill has nothing whatever to do with State recognition of any religion, Christian or otherwise. What has happened is this, that a religious organisation which, after great tribulation, has achieved worldwide recognition, found itself fettered by a trust deed. Such a trust deed cannot be altered except by the authority of Parliament. Like any other charitable trust, it must come here if it desires to accommodate itself to the needs of modern conditions.
General Higgins made it quite clear to the Committee and to a meeting of Members of this House that after he took office and before he took office he stipulated that he took it on condition that two things were altered, first, the election of the new general as and when occasion demanded, and, secondly, the holding of and, indeed, the absolute ownership of the vast sums and property owned by the Salvation Army, at any rate in this country. He was unable to
fulfil these two conditions permanently unless he had the authority of Parliament so to do. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) that it is the law—so far as I am in a position to say so, I think he correctly stated it—that it is open to General Higgins to make those alterations with regard to the succession of the next general and to make very material alterations in the legal ownership of the funds and properties, but there is nothing whatever to prevent another general a few years afterwards making another alteration and reverting to the system of the secret envelope which is, I think, roundly condemned by the common sense of the great majority of this House and of the country.
In the second place it is most undesirable that these large funds, in the legal sense and indeed in the effective sense, should be at the complete and absolute disposal of the man who for the time being is general of the Army. That is the reason why it was most desirable to make this a permanent change. That is the sole foundation for the claim of the hon. Member, in his impassioned speech, that we are clamping the fetters of the State upon a great religious body. Surely that is nonsense. The House has listened during the Debate to the hon. Member who was Chairman of the Committee. I wish to say a word or two in regard to the evidence of the support behind this Bill. Where was the great volume of hostile opinion, the thousands of soldiers who were rankling under an injustice? Was there a scintilla of evidence brought before the Committee as to this vast body of hostile opinion? Whatever our party divisions may be the House can be proud of the fact that there is no committee in the world which can equal the Committee upstairs in an impartial and efficient examination of the evidence which comes before them on a Private Bill, and we have the hon. Member who was the chairman of the Committee saying quite frankly that every opportunity was given to those who were hostile to the Bill and that the Committee were satisfied that the vast majority of those who were entitled to be heard were heard, and could have been heard if they desired.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Committee stated that
The Committee had been greatly impressed by and are strongly in accord with the view put forward in this case by both sides as to the undesirability of the continuance of these proceedings before Parliament.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not want to continue an unnecessary Debate. Let me say this in conclusion. This great organisation has achieved a position of public confidence not only in this country but throughout the world, and I am certain that every one followed with great interest and with great pain the unavoidable disputations, I will not say disputes, which have taken place. Before the House loses control of this Bill may I express the view of all parties that it is a very splendid and amazing thing that the wishes of the founder, which were stated perfectly correctly by the hon. Member for Nuneaton that the Army should keep itself clear of politics have been fully and amply fulfilled. Never has the Salvation Army been charged with taking one side or another in our party passions, and it has achieved this in every country to which it has extended its operations. I am sure that the desire, the prayer, of the vast majority of the Members of this House is that when this Bill passes into law this great, beneficent and spiritually guided and dominated organisation will resume its work free from the handicap of these unhappy divisions, and will devote itself in an even larger and wider measure to usefulness to the sick and suffering of the world physically and spiritually—resume that position and that magnificent service for mankind of which this nation, which produced the Army, is so justly proud.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in the last sentences of his speech, in regard to the respect and esteem that all of us hold for the Salvation Army. But I would recall to the House the fact that that esteem and admiration and love for the Army have been built up under the system which to-night it is proposed to change. It is that fact which causes me to go into the Lobby against the Bill. I have
never been a member of the Salvation Army, but it was born within a stone's-throw of the place where I lived during most of my childhood days. I knew its founder and I knew his wife. Mile End Waste is the spot, and it is hallowed by a million memories of the unselfish and self-denying work done by unknown men and women, led by one of the most splendid women our country has produced—Mrs. Catherine Booth. The whole of the success was built up on personal inspiration.
We all have our views about theology and supernatural things. General Booth and his wife felt themselves inspired by God to do a certain work, and they did it in an autocratic manner, in a manner of which lots of people disapproved. But if we believe in inspiration at all, the tremendous success that accompanied their work is a testimony to their faith that they were carrying out something which was inspired by God. The work went on for 60 to 70 years. So far as I know, men like the late Lord Asquith and the late Lord Haldane, cool and calm lawyers, never raised any question about the wrongfulness of the procedure which they had helped to set up. No one called it into question as it has been called into question to-night. It is said that no one to-day will support, the envelope, but it was never challenged during all the years when the Army was building up its work. Why is it challenged to-day? I understand that it is challenged because of circumstances that arose owing to the illness of General Bramwell Booth. All those difficulties were overcome; a new general was legally appointed, and no one has Called in question what was done, and if, as regards General Higgins, the head of the Salvation Army to-day, the same set of conditions arose again, it is quite certain that those difficulties could be overcome again. It is said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) that there was a question of all the property belonging to the executors, but I cannot myself believe that in the case of General William Booth there was anything of the kind. I never heard anything about the executors owning the Salvation Army property when he died.

Sir K. WOOD: In fact, on the death of General Bramwell Booth, instead of the
property vesting in trustees on behalf of the Salvation Army, as it would do under this Bill, it went to General Bramwell Booth's executors.

Mr. LANSBURY: I said General William Booth, and I should imagine that when he put the name in the envelope, in all probability be made a will transferring the whole of the property of the Salvation Army to the man whose name was in that envelope. I should think he did so and that General Higgins or whoever is head of the Salvation Army could do the same thing. I am speaking not as a lawyer but as a layman, and I believe that the general who puts the name in the envelope can, at the same time put in a will transferring the whole of the property to the person whose name is in the envelope. [Interruption.] Of course no one knows what he might have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] This will not do. The argument was quite simple. It was that it would cost a lot of money if we did not have this Bill, and I am pointing out that when General William Booth's son took over, I never heard, and I do not think anyone else heard, of any proceeding through executors for dealing with the property of the Salvation Army.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that on the death of General Bramwell Booth, instead of the property of the Salvation Army vesting, as it ought to do, in trustees on behalf of the Army, under General Bramwell Booth's intestacy the whole of the property went to his executors, and the Salvation Army had to pay for the transfer of all its property from the executors to the present General.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has still not met my point. There was no need for General Bramwell Booth to have left it in that position. Hon. Members seem to wish to tie me down to a legal point. They tell me what a person can do, or cannot do legally, but the only point which I am making, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, is that there is no reason whatever why any general should not, legally, make ample provision for the transfer of the property. Therefore, I say that the argument that this procedure must of neces-
sity mean a great expense on the decease of a General of the Salvation Army goes by the board. If this Bill were not passed, and if General Higgins wished that the expense should be saved, it would be easy for him to make provision accordingly, and if either of the other Generals did not make that provision, then I think they failed in their duty.
It is argued to-night that all the Nonconformist bodies have to come to this House in one way or another about their trust deeds. Personally, I think it is a great pity that the one big undenominational organisation that stands separate and apart from all other religious organisations in this country should have to come here in this way, and at a time when many members of the Church of England are longing for procedure to be established by which they can get rid of Parliamentary control altogether, I think it is rather bad that we should be interfering in the business of the Salvation Army. It may very well be that some other general will arise and will want the trust deeds of the Salvation Army settling its doctrine, and in a way we to-night are settling it in a particular sense by giving the present people a legal standing to lay down laws and rules and regulations for the governance of the Army. I think we are emphasising and strengthening that side of the business, but I do not think that any case has been made out for the Bill, because everybody who has spoken has said what a splendid body the Salvation Army is, and we all agree that it is so, but it came into existence and has been brought up to the position which it now holds without this law, without these regulations. That is the greatest argument—more than any words that I could utter—for leaving things as they are.
I do not argue whether the members have been consulted or not. I do not know. I have had fewer letters about this question than I have about many another question that has come before the House of Commons. My whole objection to the Bill is that, in my judgment, the less the House of Commons, as a corporate body, has to do with organised or unorganised religion, the better for the religion. It is for that reason, in the main—the other reasons are subsidiary—that I object to putting this on to the Salvation Army. When it is said
that we are not tampering with the Army, we are. We are breaking the very thing on which the founder of the Salvation Army pinned his whole faith, and his faith was that whoever succeeded him and carried on his work should be inspired, not by a legal document, but by something very much higher. It is for those reasons that I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: I should like to answer the right hon. Gentleman's three points. First, about the late General William Booth, of course, the thing did not arise, for the reason that General William Booth made General Bramwell Booth both his successor and his executor, but he might have done something very different, though he did not. The right hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that the farther you get away, in the case of an organisation like this, from the original founder, the more difficult and complicated the question becomes for the successor. That is the answer to that point. The second point was the question whether the change could be made without coming to Parliament. There is no doubt whatever that General Higgins was elected by the High Council from all over the world after his expressed determination if elected, to give effect to the two changes which are proposed.

Mr. LANSBURY: There is nothing legal about that.

Mr. BROWN: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen as quietly to me as I did to him, he will permit me to conclude my sentence. The Attorney-General pointed out that if the changes are to be made legally binding on the General, his officers and successors, then they must come to Parliament to alter the terms of the trust. The only other point is one which must appeal with very great force to many hon. Members who, like myself, are members of the Free Church. Before I put my name on the back of this Bill I gave three weeks anxious consideration as to whether I could do so, and I was sure of it for reasons which are obvious. My old father carried the flag of the Army back in the days of persecution. Like any Free Churchman, I am opposed to any interference with religious organisation in terms of law and I had to satisfy my conscience on
one point—did the proposals of the Bill, or did they not, interfere with the doctrine, the faith, the beliefs and religious practices of the Army? I was sure that the Bill did not, and I am confirmed in that by a passage in the report of the Attorney-General. If Members will look at page 5 they will see that he said:
In no sense can the Bill be said to provide a complete Parliamentary constitution for the Army or to affect in any respect the spiritual side of its work.
I think that those words are decisive. The Army is not merely a religious organisation, but a sociological organisation as well, for General William Booth discovered darkest man before he discovered darkest England. It is in the nature of the thing that the organisation is not now as it was when it started. When it began, it was purely an Evangelical movement. It is not merely that now, but also a great sociological movement, and I do beg hon. Members who love the work of the Army, although they may differ from this, not to stand in the way, but rather to end the dissensions which have hampered its work. As far as I am concerned, I have made very careful inquiries from my friends in the country, and I am sure that the rank and file of the Army will offer hallelujahs if the Bill gets a Third Beading to-night.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I do not very often intervene in these Debates, coming as I do from Ireland, but I would like to add any weight I may have in favour of the Bill. We know the work that has been done by the Salvation Army, though there may be some hon. Members who may be inclined to dispute the fact that it has done the Irish very much good. May I add that we might have been in a very much worse state without it? I had the honour of having the original General Booth in my own house when he visited Northern Ireland, and I would like to say, in regard to the words that fell from the hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill, that so far as my conversation with the late General on Parliamentary interference went, he made a distinct difference between Parliamentary interference and political interference. If this Bill meant political interference, many of us would have nothing to do with it.
Another point is made with regard to tampering with the foundations of this great organisation. If you tamper with the foundations, the superstructure will fall. I have seen great buildings erected on piles driven into the ground. These wooden piles have rotted and a proper foundation substituted therefor, and that is what this Bill will be to the Salvation Army. It has been urged that the Salvation Army should be left to work out their own salvation in their own way, but this Bill will not interfere with that. The Army was founded on a great inspiration. This Bill will not interfere with the in-

spiration of the Salvation Army. They will carry out their work as they have carried it out before, and this Bill will assist them to do it. Their ability to manage their own affairs will not be interfered with in the slightest way. They will carry on in the same magnificent way as before and with the same succcess, and it is because of that that I, as a Northern Irishman, give my wholehearted support to the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes. 221; Noes, 31.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Isaac
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mansfield, W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Marcus, M.


Alpass, J. H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Markham. S. F.


Ammon, Charles George
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Marshall, Fred


Arnott, John
Gill, T. H.
Mathers, George


Aske, Sir Robert
Glassey, A. E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gould, F.
Messer, Fred


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Millar, J. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Milne, Ward law-, J. S.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Granville, E.
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Benson, G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Birkett, W. Norman
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hall, Capt. W. Q. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mort, D. L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muff, G.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harbord, A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Boyce, Leslie
Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haycock, A. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Biscoe, Richard George
Haynay, Arthur
Oldfield, J. R.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Herriotts, J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hopkin, Daniel
Paling, Wilfrid


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horrabin, J. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Campbell, E. T.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cape, Thomas
Hurd, Percy A.
Perry, S. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Inksip, Sir Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Iveagh, Counted of
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pybus, Percy John


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R,


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Remer, John R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lang, Gordon
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Colman, N. C. D.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Richards, R.


Compton, Joseph
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cowan, D. M.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rothschild, J. de


Daggar, George
Lindley, Fred W.
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalton, Hugh
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Salmon. Major I.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Longbottom, A. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dawson, Sir Philip
Longden, F
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Duncan, Charles
Lunn, William
Sanders, W. S.


Edmondson, Major A. J,
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Scrymgeour, E.


Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McShane, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Sullivan, J
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, vice-Admiral E. A.
White, H. G.


Shillaker, J. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thompson, Luke
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Simms, Major-General J.
Thomson, Sir F.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Simmons, C. J.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Sinkinson, George
Tout, W. J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Townend, A. E.
Womersley, W. J.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Walkden, A. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, H. W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert



Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Watkins, F. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sorensen, R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Captain Hudson and Dr. Hastings.


Strauss, G. R.
Wellock, Wilfred



NOES


Barr, James
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Beaumont, M. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Thurtle, Ernest


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
McElwee, A.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Ede, James Chuter
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Freeman, Peter
Palmer, E. T.



Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Frank Smith and Mr. Holford


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Knight.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Rowson, Guy



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1931.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £118,943 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919,
and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Walton-on-the-Naze, in the county of Essex, which was presented on the 15th day of April, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Westhampnett, in the administrative county of West Sussex, which was presented on the 15th day of April, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. BEAUMONT: The matter which I desire to raise is one which has very widespread effect in reference to the working of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It can best be illustrated by an isolated case brought to my notice in my own constituency, and this case is, I understand, typical of many all over the country. In the Royal Air Force camp at Halton, men have been employed, since
the inception of the camp, as stokers, and, as such, for many years, have paid insurance contributions. The insurance contributions were deducted from their pay at each week-end, but in March of this year the deductions suddenly ceased. They were informed that, under a judgment of the High Court in April of last year they had been declared to be domestic servants and were thus no longer eligible for unemployment benefit and therefore no longer liable to contribute. I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to be able to state how that definition was arrived at, but I am convinced that men who stoke the boilers for the steam heating of a large Air Force camp were never intended by the House to be classed as domestic servants, and that it was never intended that, having paid contributions all these years, they should be deprived of benefit. The hardship is even greater. In some cases this is casual employment. These men have been taken on in the winter months; they have paid their insurance contributions, and have subsisted on unemployment benefit during the summer months. Now, having paid for insurance, having had all these winter deductions from their wages—money which they might have saved in order to help towards provision for the summer—they will have no means of subsistence during the summer.
Some of these men have been employed for 10 and 12 years and some have-only been taken on recently. Some of them have been informed that they can only recover their past payments for more than one year or less than six years. Therefore, a man who has been in unemployment insurance for only nine months, and is suddenly deprived of any right to benefit, cannot reclaim his past payments, and a man who has paid for nine years cannot reclaim payment for the first three years. That is a dead loss to him, and not by his error, but by the error of the Government. The answer to this may be that these are the laws on the Statute Book and that without legislation nothing can be done. But this is a matter of very grave urgency. Some of these men will be in want. They are all poor men. They are also told their situation will not be certain until the case has actually been tried before the
courts. That is another hardship and a very serious one to put on poor men. In a matter of this sort, on which there can be no disagreement, the House will be very well employed if, instead of spending its time in some of the questionable ways in which it does, an agreed Measure to deal with these very hard cases was pressed forward at once.

Mr. HAYDAY: I should like to reinforce the plea and the particulars of cases set forth by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont). I have received communications from the firemen who are members of my organisation at the Cranwell depot. Some time ago the case was heard affecting firemen employed on yachts at Cowes. It was then decided that they belonged to a class, and should be classified as seamen. While I recognise that the Minister cannot help the decision of the Judge in this case, I would suggest that these men belong to the class of boiler firemen. Who on earth would ever have dreamed of a time when a Judge would have described a boiler fireman as a domestic servant? We might as well suggest that gas stokers employed in the carbonisation of coal and the manufacture of gas for domestic use belong to the same category. I know that there is the question of the refund. I know of cases where boilermen have paid their contributions for over 11 years. They have worked as boiler firemen in other places, and that. is their trade and occupation. It takes 12 months before the Department can warn these men, and I hope that something will be done to put an end to the classification of men of this character as domestics, so that they may take advantage of any benefits that may accrue to them under the Insurance Fund.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am bound to tell the House that, strictly speaking, this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment would be out of order, because the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), in the concluding part of his speech, asked the Government to bring in legislation, which clearly proves that if this thing is to be dealt with, it must be done by legislation. That would not be strictly in order on the Motion for the Adjournment.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I quite agree with the hon.
Member that this is not a party question. It is a question which has to be administered, no matter who is at the head of the Ministry. The definition of a Judge of what is or is not domestic service is entirely beyond the comprehension of the lay mind. I say that frankly. I may, first of all, point out that the phrase in question is:
Employment in domestic service except where the employed person is employed in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain.
Under that paragraph, the High Court has established that a stoker who is employed by the Office of Works, not by the Air Ministry as stated, is classified in this way by the Judge. The exception has been held to cover, for example, not only a stoker, but also a huntsman and kennelman, a river keeper employed on a private estate where fishing was preserved, an attendant at a museum, a storekeeper at a hospital, a greyhound trainer and gamekeeper, a caretaker in county council offices, a school cleaner, an attendant at public baths, and an attendant at a public library. Public bathe include pit head baths. We have therefore a perfectly anomalous position. It is true that it cannot be dealt with except by legislation. We have directed the attention of the Royal. Commission to these judgments and the situation which has been created by this definition of what is or is not domestic service. can only say to the House that that is the position at present under the law, that these men technically are stokers in the employ of the Office of Works and as such have been held by the Judge to be employed in domestic service not for the purpose of gain. The High Court has decided that they are not insurable against unemployment, and against this position there is no appeal.
The men concerned may claim a refund of the contributions for the last six years. When we come across cases of this kind we do everything we can to expedite a refund to the employers and the workers. While having every sympathy with those affected by the state of confusion which these judgments create I am helpless to do more than see
that the attention of the Royal Commission has been drawn to the matter.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Without waiting for the legislation which may or may not follow the report of the Royal Commission is it not possible to secure that these men, if they cannot have the benefits for which they have paid, should be refunded their contributions not merely partially, but in full? I understand that their contributions if they are not continued for a year are not now refunded, or if their contributions have been made for more than six years then that part which was paid outside the immediate six years is not refunded. Cannot the Government, without any legislation, deal with the matter by a Vote of this House, if a vote is required, in order to repay these men money which ought never to have been collected from them; according to the judgment of the court, and for which they can receive no possible benefit?

Mr. HAYDAY: In the event of these stokers having served for four or five years in some other form of civilian employment that was insurable, does the fact that they have been in this employment for two years disqualify them from their previous qualification and alter their status?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is the law at the present time.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I have an answer to my question?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will certainly look into that point, but the Regulations as they stand at present limit the power of refund. I will certainly look into that point.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Is not that an executive regulation which is not in the Statute itself?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will look into that point.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven, o'Clock.